View Poll Results: should it be made easier for more candidates in the Pres debates?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    22 68.75%
  • No

    10 31.25%
Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 140

Thread: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Pres

  1. #51
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    both democrats and republicans parties work to squeeze out any 3rd party.

    debates have lasted 3 hours on TV with several party candidates, yet in that about of time i get to hear very little substance from each candidate, since each candidate over talks his time, tells everyone he loves america, and has to thank everyone for being at the debate.

    so we end up with the Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche type debate.

    http://southpark.cc.com/clips/154582/debate-2004
    Last edited by Master PO; 03-25-15 at 12:17 AM.

  2. #52
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    They see the names on the ballot every time they vote.
    That is assuming their state does not **** 3rd party candidates out of ballot access.Seeing a name and party affiliation on a ballot does not tell you what issues a candidate stands for, a candidate's past votes, or the candidate's solutions to various current issues.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #53
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No but a voter guide does and all voters get them, as far as I know, before the election. So again, can these people not read?
    Many states do not mail out voter guides.

    And even if they get to the ballot box and haven't done their homework, meaning they really shouldn't be voting at all, are they so daft they can't go home and research these parties for the next election?
    The next election is not the issue, what is the issue is the current election.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #54
    Educator foadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bangkok/Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    917

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    I think ballot access is a much bigger issue for third party and independent candidates. Just look at Americans Elect in 2012. They had deeper pockets than the DNC and GOP combined, spent $35 million, and couldn't even secure ballot access in 40 states. Or look at the legacy third parties, they have to spend nearly their entire national budget to maintain ballot access.
    I don't have proof for any of this, but you have to wonder.

  5. #55
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Recently there has been some debate around the Presidential Debates, and how many candidates should be invited. A new group is looking to press for a change in the rules to make it easier for 3rd parties or independent candidates into the debate. Info on that can be found here: New group calls for changes in presidential debate rules - The Washington Post


    My question to you is, "should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Presidential debates?"
    absolutely.... they should change the rules to " if you're on the ballot, you're in the debates"... and the debates should be run by a neutral 3rd party (non-political)

  6. #56
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    If ALL CANDIDATES mean everybody on the ballot for President, that could be a rather large crowd on stage especially once word of this change gets out.
    there's thousands of auditioners for American idol and we seem to muddle through it pretty well....are you saying we can't device a system of deabtes where 12 people will be heard?

    So how do you get around the normal objection that the vast vast majority of voters have no interest in the little third party candidates and parties and just want to hear the big two - or in rare years possible three?
    very few people are exposed to 3rd parties... debates lends to exposure... and <gasp!> more ideas and policies... i know , i know, it's hard to believe, but yes, by gawd, there are more than 2 positions to every issue.

    not sure why the die hard partisans are so scared of a lil competition... if you're parties are as super-duper as you believe them to be, they'll still capture the office.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Recently there has been some debate around the Presidential Debates, and how many candidates should be invited. A new group is looking to press for a change in the rules to make it easier for 3rd parties or independent candidates into the debate. Info on that can be found here: New group calls for changes in presidential debate rules - The Washington Post


    My question to you is, "should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Presidential debates?"

    I answered "no."

    The reason being, while I do appreciate the drive toward more democracy and I do believe we should further explore how this can be accomplished, we have to understand that representative governing power in ALL Western democracies is manifested by way of political coalitions. This is the norm.

    In parliamentary democracies such as Canada and Western European nations, the process is more straightforward - political parties form visible coalitions and PM's are elected by way of such coalitions.

    In our American democracy, the coalition process is murkier and more ambiguous, however it still happens.... just earlier in the election cycle. For instance, within the Republican party, you have libertarians, tea partiers, more traditional Rino-Republicans, etc. The democratic side of this process and the coalition building occurs during the primaries.... for example Republican primary voters will be able to select from Ted Cruz, a tea partier, Jeb Bush, a Rino, Rand Paul, a libertarian, and a slew of others with varying views.

    The same thing occurs on the Democratic side with establishment candidates vying against the more progressive and "green" members for the Democratic nomination.

    So, in summary, I think the will of the American People is fairly represented with the current system, although it can be less obvious to the untrained eye than what we see in parliamentary democracies.

    I think the biggest problem with allowing a third-party candidate (or more) in to the main presidential debates is that these candidates tend to split the vote for one of the parties involved, thus skewing the results from what they probably should have been.

    Ross Perot, for example, more than likely should have tried his hand during the Republican primary nomination... and it could be said that he cost George HW Bush his second term by dividing the right-wing vote.

    It could be said, likewise, that Ralph Nader had a similar effect on Al Gore during his presidential run, and the general election would have been more "democratic" - in the sense that the final result would have better reflected the will of the American People - had he chosen to run as a Democrat during the democratic primaries rather than splitting the general vote for the left wing.
    Last edited by Peter Grimm; 03-25-15 at 02:18 AM.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    The other thing that people often forget is that political parties in the USA are constantly evolving and are never static. For example, the Democrats and Republicans, at one point in history, were almost entirely flipped around. We once had a viable Whig party.

    The best way to get on a ballot as a libertarian, tea partier, green partier, etc is to do so within either the Democratic or Republican platform. Change the party from within, and add to the discourse within that party.

    Also, it would seem to me that if the philosophical differences are truly irreconcilable, then the best place for one of these third parties to really begin getting a foothold in the national discussion would be in congress... or even in state or local government.

    Why, for example, do we not see many "libertarian" or "green party" candidates in the House of Representatives? Why do we only discuss third parties when the presidential election comes around?

    The congressional level, it would seem to me, would be the best and fairest place to start proving your party out to the general public. If we had a charismatic and viable libertarian governor or congressman, for example, the thought of a third party president would become much more palpable to the voting masses.

    In summary, I think getting a third-party candidate on the big-ticket presidential ballot "just because," when such candidates are not even viable at the congressional or even local levels, is pointless, actually does more harm than good to the overall democratic process.
    Last edited by Peter Grimm; 03-25-15 at 02:38 AM.

  9. #59
    Educator foadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bangkok/Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    917

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    The other thing that people often forget is that political parties in the USA are constantly evolving and are never static. For example, the Democrats and Republicans, at one point in history, were almost entirely flipped around. We once had a viable Whig party.

    The best way to get on a ballot as a libertarian, tea partier, green partier, etc is to do so within either the Democratic or Republican platform. Change the party from within, and add to the discourse within that party.

    Also, it would seem to me that if the philosophical differences are truly irreconcilable, then the best place for one of these third parties to really begin getting a foothold in the national discussion would be in congress... or even in state or local government.

    Why, for example, do we not see many "libertarian" or "green party" candidates in the House of Representatives? Why do we only discuss third parties when the presidential election comes around?

    The congressional level, it would seem to me, would be the best and fairest place to start proving your party out to the general public. If we had a charismatic and viable libertarian governor or congressman, for example, the thought of a third party president would become much more palpable to the voting masses.

    In summary, I think getting a third-party candidate on the big-ticket presidential ballot "just because," when such candidates are not even viable at the congressional or even local levels, is pointless, actually does more harm than good to the overall democratic process.
    California has a top two primary for US congress and the state legislature. Makes it nearly impossible for minor parties to gain a foothold.
    I don't have proof for any of this, but you have to wonder.

  10. #60
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,832

    Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    That is assuming their state does not **** 3rd party candidates out of ballot access.Seeing a name and party affiliation on a ballot does not tell you what issues a candidate stands for, a candidate's past votes, or the candidate's solutions to various current issues.
    So in the last few election cycles, 2004, 2008, 2012 - how many states was the Libertarian candidate shut out from getting on the ballot?

    Of course voters will have to due their end of the work. That would be true of ANY system that a candidate finds themselves running in.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •