• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Commission on Presidential Debates Have a Monopoly on Debates?

Should the Commission on Presidential Debates Have a Monopoly on Debates?


  • Total voters
    9

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
[h=1]The commission on Presidential Debates essentially has a monopoly on popular public presidential debates in this country. Should the Commission on Presidential Debates Have a Monopoly on Debates?[/h]
 
[h=1]The commission on Presidential Debates essentially has a monopoly on popular public presidential debates in this country. Should the Commission on Presidential Debates Have a Monopoly on Debates?[/h]

Really good question. I haven't really thought about it until you asked.

I suppose, that without the commission, that anyone could "call for" or "sponsor" a debate and chaos would rein. So, I guess, yes. They should, as long as the major parties have input.
 
The debates should be on Al Jazeera.
 
Really good question. I haven't really thought about it until you asked.

I suppose, that without the commission, that anyone could "call for" or "sponsor" a debate and chaos would rein. So, I guess, yes. They should, as long as the major parties have input.

Why not just have them publicly sponsored and ran similar to many other liberal democracies? Since the parties essentially chair the commission, they control who gets to appear, therefore pushing out parties that arent covered within the GOP and Dems
 
Why not just have them publicly sponsored and ran similar to many other liberal democracies? Since the parties essentially chair the commission, they control who gets to appear, therefore pushing out parties that arent covered within the GOP and Dems

Honestly? I don't know. I would need to ponder on it a while.

We have a two party system. Always have. To bring other parties into the equation during a debate would be difficult. No matter what, someone would have to be left off the stage - List of political parties in the US.

If I counted correctly, there are 35 national political parties, and 34 regional political parties in the US. Can you imagine? To do a debate with just the national parties, would take maybe, well - lets do the math - 35 candidates x 5 questions x (30 seconds to ask the question + 1 minute response + 1 minute rebuttal + 1 minute overtime BS) = 612.5 minutes = 10.21 hours, not including bathroom breaks or advertising time on the TV.
 
Honestly? I don't know. I would need to ponder on it a while.
I mean... Neither do I.... Thats why I'm in favor of it because I can think of no negative consequences from it other than getting the GOP and Dems panties in a bunch.... And the reason they'll get in a bunch is because they currently control the system.. Literally.

We have a two party system. Always have. To bring other parties into the equation during a debate would be difficult. No matter what, someone would have to be left off the stage - List of political parties in the US.


If I counted correctly, there are 35 national political parties, and 34 regional political parties in the US. Can you imagine? To do a debate with just the national parties, would take maybe, well - lets do the math - 35 candidates x 5 questions x (30 seconds to ask the question + 1 minute response + 1 minute rebuttal + 1 minute overtime BS) = 612.5 minutes = 10.21 hours, not including bathroom breaks or advertising time on the TV.
No one is calling for all 35 "minor" parties to enter the stage. Just think, the National Socialist Party on the stage, or the Prohibition Party....
There needs to be a clear and independent party there. We purposely ignore parties to the left of the dems (socialist parties, social democrats) and the right of the repubs (right wing libertarian, paleo-cons) because of the threat to the 2 party structure. Just because one system has been in place (which in reality it really hasnt, threats of a third party were drown out through federal government action such as alien and seditition acts, etc) does not mean its justifiable.
 
Just because one system has been in place (which in reality it really hasnt, threats of a third party were drown out through federal government action such as alien and seditition acts, etc) does not mean its justifiable.

The system is not justified by "being in place". The system is designed to push compromise from the ground up, via voters themselves deciding which party has reached a more reasonable position on the issues or issues that concern them most, with acceptable positions in other areas. In a multi-party system, such as that of most of Europe, compromise is from the top down, originating with party elites in parliament according to their opinions.

So, do we want congress people deciding what compromises (regarding other party positions) to make, or do we want to do that ourselves. Sure, much of the multi-party system is good but to pretend a two party system is justified merely by its existence is ignorant.
 
The system is not justified by "being in place". The system is designed to push compromise from the ground up, via voters themselves deciding which party has reached a more reasonable position on the issues or issues that concern them most, with acceptable positions in other areas. In a multi-party system, such as that of most of Europe, compromise is from the top down, originating with party elites in parliament according to their opinions.
1.)Compromise is top down here as well......
2.)Party leaders are seen as key in some multi party systems mainly because of proportional representation systems. We are not one of those.

So, do we want congress people deciding what compromises (regarding other party positions) to make, or do we want to do that ourselves. Sure, much of the multi-party system is good but to pretend a two party system is justified merely by its existence is ignorant.

They are not mutually exclusive. If multi party systems did not work that would fail to explain why their are multi party single winner voting systems.
 
1.)Compromise is top down here as well......

You fail to understand.

The policies and initiatives to be adopted by major parties, from third parties, are a matter of public opinion. It's up to each person to decide which of the two major parties holds a greater number of one's preferred positions and incorporates the important issues of third parties. In this way, ideas are conglomerated by the people.

In a multi-party system, compromises with third party positions is a matter of political elites in parliament deciding who joins their clique.

2.)Party leaders are seen as key in some multi party systems mainly because of proportional representation systems. We are not one of those.

They are seen as key, regarding my above point, because they decide what third party polices are mainstreamed (via coalition) and not the voter.

They are not mutually exclusive. If multi party systems did not work that would fail to explain why their are multi party single winner voting systems.

Did I say it didn't work? No. I'm not the person here taking a black or white position - you are. Fact is, both two and multi party systems have advantages and disadvantages, and one issue is a top down vs. bottom up process. A multi party system in which the political elite decide what to include is clearly top down as opposed to a system in which the voter decides, directly, what hodge-podge (compromise) of positions is best.
 
I mean... Neither do I.... Thats why I'm in favor of it because I can think of no negative consequences from it other than getting the GOP and Dems panties in a bunch.... And the reason they'll get in a bunch is because they currently control the system.. Literally.


No one is calling for all 35 "minor" parties to enter the stage. Just think, the National Socialist Party on the stage, or the Prohibition Party....
There needs to be a clear and independent party there. We purposely ignore parties to the left of the dems (socialist parties, social democrats) and the right of the repubs (right wing libertarian, paleo-cons) because of the threat to the 2 party structure. Just because one system has been in place (which in reality it really hasnt, threats of a third party were drown out through federal government action such as alien and seditition acts, etc) does not mean its justifiable.

We really are a two party system. The election is not what matters in that it is the House of Representatives and the Senate and their structure that matters. They are set up as a two party system, not a parliamentary system where multiple parties can share government powers so that non-REP and non-DEM members have to caucus with one of the two parties (an example is Bernie Sanders who has to caucus with the Democrats). We have a separate Executive Branch, where the parliamentary system controls both the legislature and the executive through Prime Minister and so on.
 
Last edited:
You fail to understand.

The policies and initiatives to be adopted by major parties, from third parties, are a matter of public opinion. It's up to each person to decide which of the two major parties holds a greater number of one's preferred positions and incorporates the important issues of third parties. In this way, ideas are conglomerated by the people.

In a multi-party system, compromises with third party positions is a matter of political elites in parliament deciding who joins their clique.
Ummmm... Again no its not.
Take a look at tax policy and top tax rates opinion in the US...


They are seen as key, regarding my above point, because they decide what third party polices are mainstreamed (via coalition) and not the voter.
Again. The fundamental way our government operates does not need nor do many multi party governments that mirror our election structure need such official coalition.


Did I say it didn't work? No. I'm not the person here taking a black or white position - you are.
Uh what?

Fact is, both two and multi party systems have advantages and disadvantages, and one issue is a top down vs. bottom up process.
BUt your explanation does not make sense.... Because examples prove they dont work that way....

A multi party system in which the political elite decide
But "multi" in meaning more than 2, they also do it...

what to include is clearly top down as opposed to a system in which the voter decides, directly, what hodge-podge (compromise) of positions is best.
But I still fail to see how "compromise" is abandoned in single multi party single winner voting systems... Because current examples show they are not...
 
Ummmm... Again no its not.

Umm, yes it is and until you have the slightest clue regarding the two party system, I'll leave you to your US bashing.

First hint: the two party system is not justified by its existence. Go learn how it is justified, you'll find it's what I've told you. If you can't understand it, I don't care; there are plenty of ignorant people spewing crap about one thing or another.
 
Umm, yes it is and until you have the slightest clue regarding the two party system, I'll leave you to your US bashing.

First hint: the two party system is not justified by its existence. Go learn how it is justified, you'll find it's what I've told you. If you can't understand it, I don't care; there are plenty of ignorant people spewing crap about one thing or another.

And your explanation so easily explained this point: "Take a look at tax policy and top tax rates opinion in the US... "

And the growing rise of independents.. :roll:
 
Really good question. I haven't really thought about it until you asked.

I suppose, that without the commission, that anyone could "call for" or "sponsor" a debate and chaos would rein. So, I guess, yes. They should, as long as the major parties have input.

Well here in Canada until this election what we call the consortium (the former major broadcasters of debates and similar to your commission) controlled all the debates but this year the Conservatives refused to participate so all the other parties refused to participate as well. So we had alternative debates hosted by other organizations and still are. It actually worked out great, and the minor Green and Bloc parties got to participate in some of them as well. Chaos cannot reign as the all parties have to agree to participate otherwise they are kind of pointless.
 
The debates should be on Al Jazeera.

Well there is no reason Al Jazeera English should not be able to host a debate, maybe they could host one on Middle East policy.
 
And your explanation so easily explained this point: "Take a look at tax policy and top tax rates opinion in the US... "

Changing the subject will not reduce ignorance. Go on believing the two party system is justified by its existence. Any educated person will know you're spewing ignorant crap. Or... you could study the subject and stop looking like an anti-US hack. My guess? You'll go on wailing about the evils of the two party system without the slightest clue what you're talking about.
 
Well here in Canada until this election what we call the consortium (the former major broadcasters of debates and similar to your commission) controlled all the debates but this year the Conservatives refused to participate so all the other parties refused to participate as well. So we had alternative debates hosted by other organizations and still are. It actually worked out great, and the minor Green and Bloc parties got to participate in some of them as well. Chaos cannot reign as the all parties have to agree to participate otherwise they are kind of pointless.

If we were parliamentary as Canada is, it may work here as well. But, we are not. However, we do give outliers access. For instance, Bernie Sanders will be on the debate stage with the Democrats since he Caucuses with them and is running as a candidate for the Democratic Nomination instead of running as an Independent, or Socialist Democrat, etc..
 
Changing the subject will not reduce ignorance. Go on believing the two party system is justified by its existence. Any educated person will know you're spewing ignorant crap. Or... you could study the subject and stop looking like an anti-US hack. My guess? You'll go on wailing about the evils of the two party system without the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Its not about subject its about popular position and your points earlier.... Using an example of popular positions and politician policy to counter your claims is not "changing the subject"
 
Its not about subject its about popular position and your points earlier.... Using an example of popular positions and politician policy to counter your claims is not "changing the subject"

Keep spewing... still waiting for your understanding of what justifies the two party system...
 
We really are a two party system. The election is not what matters in that it is the House of Representatives and the Senate and their structure that matters. They are set up as a two party system, not a parliamentary system where multiple parties can share government powers so that non-REP and non-DEM members have to caucus with one of the two parties (an example is Bernie Sanders who has to caucus with the Democrats). We have a separate Executive Branch, where the parliamentary system controls both the legislature and the executive through Prime Minister and so on.

Well it would take some reform, but it could be very easily done. All you would really have to do is enable Congress to dissolve itself by majority vote. It would be no different than what you have now with the Republicans controlling Congress.
 
If we were parliamentary as Canada is, it may work here as well. But, we are not. However, we do give outliers access. For instance, Bernie Sanders will be on the debate stage with the Democrats since he Caucuses with them and is running as a candidate for the Democratic Nomination instead of running as an Independent, or Socialist Democrat, etc..

Well you could just set a threshold for participation like x% of the vote won in the last election or n% in the polls.
 
Keep spewing... still waiting for your understanding of what justifies the two party system...

What justifies a two party system? "Moderation", unification, power sharing in many aspects of not only governance but the justification of what can be seen as "valid positions" (AKA debate process), lack of diversity in opinion.

Also nor did I say, "two party system is justified by its existence" as you stated in post #16
 
What justifies a two party system? "Moderation", unification, power sharing in many aspects of not only governance but the justification of what can be seen as "valid positions" (AKA debate process),

A two party system forces these things at the ground level, the voter. A multiparty system forces these things from the top down, political elites deciding their coalition.

lack of diversity in opinion.

That's not a justification and there's no ruling out of any opinions in the process.

Also nor did I say, "two party system is justified by its existence" as you stated in post #16

Just because one system has been in place... does not mean its justifiable.

Of course not, that would be stupid. There are many considerations that justify the two party system.
 
[h=1]The commission on Presidential Debates essentially has a monopoly on popular public presidential debates in this country. Should the Commission on Presidential Debates Have a Monopoly on Debates?[/h]

I've honestly never given it any thought before. In what way does the commission have a monopoly and how is it maintained? Is there something preventing other groups from hosting debates?

I do think that 3rd parties should get more of a voice in the debates. I think it should be set up so that if you can provide a petition with X number of signatures (not sure exactly what that number should be), then you should get a spot in the debate since you've proven that there's interest from the public in seeing you there.
 
[h=1]The commission on Presidential Debates essentially has a monopoly on popular public presidential debates in this country. Should the Commission on Presidential Debates Have a Monopoly on Debates?[/h]

??? I had no idea. I thought The League of Women Voters could hold them too. In 2008 Pastor Rick Warren hosted one in his church.
 
Back
Top Bottom