Should media give equal coverage to the Green and Libertarian Parties?

Gipper said:

Voters. The electoral system, as it is now, is designed to quell the ability for another party to rise.

Perot's biggest obstacle was states who refused to acknowledge his candidacy on ballots. The system is designed to fiercely protect its own.

As long as this system prevails, along with a winner-take-all format, you're stuck with picking the lesser of two evils if you don't tow party lines.

Click to expand...

I agree so things like the EC would have to go through Amendments which I support. I think after that the 'obstacles" are less invasive.

joko104 said:

It is amazing how many answered yes. What they are saying is that really Obama and Romney should have only had 15 minutes each in the debates - with equal time to candidates that less than 10% of voters could even name.

And why those two 3rd parties only??? Because the OP - in total contradiction - wants to exclude other 3rd parties from having a voice?

There are SIXTEEN THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT. So REALLY, the OP and majority on the forum think that Obama and Romney should only be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in the debates, with 16 other candidates "having equal time."

But why limit it to Party candidates? Why not all candidates for President in the USA? Then Obama and Romney get 18 seconds each in the debate.

Click to expand...

It could be argued that why 3rd parties get so low a showing is BECAUSE they get so little exposure, and that their showing would improve if they did get more exposure.

jamesrage said:

The media should give equal airtime to all 3rd party candidates. The media has blatantly ignored 3rd party candidates and excluded them from debates in order to deliberately aid the two party monopoly.

Click to expand...

I would even say a one party monopoly with the liberal media slobbering all over the DNC.

Equal, in the strict definition of the word? No. But, the media is not serving us well by pretty much ignoring them. Whether it's local news or national, we usually get a token mention or two regarding 3rd parties in a campaign season, and that's it. I'm sorry, but 3rd parties at least have viable and legitimate ideas, if not always candidates, and we the people need to be served better in this regard.

radcen said:

It could be argued that why 3rd parties get so low a showing is BECAUSE they get so little exposure, and that their showing would improve if they did get more exposure.

Click to expand...

That does not explain why the OP gives EQUAL importance to the Green and Libertarian Party to Republican and Democrat - BUT ZERO STATUS for the other 16 parties?

Thus, I do NOT think this is about equality for 3rd parties. Rather, the OP favors the Green or Libertarian Party over the two major parties and wants the media to give artificially them equal status that voters do not. The OP is as much prejudiced against 3rd parties as possible by stating only 2 of the 18 on the ballot.

joko104 said:

That does not explain why the OP gives EQUAL importance to the Green and Libertarian Party to Republican and Democrat - BUT ZERO STATUS for the other 16 parties?

Thus, I do NOT think this is about equality for 3rd parties. Rather, the OP favors the Green or Libertarian Party over the two major parties and wants the media to give artificially them equal status that voters do not. The OP is as much prejudiced against 3rd parties as possible by stating only 2 of the 18 on the ballot.

Click to expand...

Seeing how the media in general deliberately ignores 3rd parties the OP is probably only listing examples he knows of.

I think people put too much emphasis on the importance of media as opposed to the structural hurdles third parties have to overcome. For how little the Libertarian and Green parties have to spend they actually do quite well (well the Libertarian party does) in terms of media coverage and public awareness. The issue is that they have almost nothing to spend because they financially exhaust themselves trying to get ballot access and to defend their positions on said ballots. If you ask most serious third party candidates who have run for statewide offices they will cite this problem over media coverage every time.

If ballot access were cheap, and easy to defend, third parties would have hundreds of thousands if not a million or two to kick around on actual campaign activities like cheap ad buys, hiring actual staffers and volunteers, setting up some offices, etc. It's not a ton, but it also creates a multiplier effect because these are the things you need to show if you want to convince more people to donate.

Edit: I also don't think it is deliberate that the media 'ignores' third party candidates in that I do not believe it is some sort of conspiracy with the GOP and Democratic parties.

Jetboogieman said:

I think they should.

And I think there should be at least one presidential debate where all the sane alternatives are there.

Not even nessecarily because I'd support any of them.

But because I think it's healthy in a democracy for people to hear all kinds of views rather than the two party dictatorship the USA has right now.

I think it'd be a refreshing change from the Right - Left hamster wheel you guys are on.

Click to expand...

And I'd be willing to bet there's a good chance the GOP and DNC candidates wouldn't show up.

joko104 said:

That does not explain why the OP gives EQUAL importance to the Green and Libertarian Party to Republican and Democrat - BUT ZERO STATUS for the other 16 parties?

Thus, I do NOT think this is about equality for 3rd parties. Rather, the OP favors the Green or Libertarian Party over the two major parties and wants the media to give artificially them equal status that voters do not. The OP is as much prejudiced against 3rd parties as possible by stating only 2 of the 18 on the ballot.

Click to expand...

At some point, IMHO we need to be realists. On one hand the GOP and the DNC do have a monopoly on American politics and I think enforced by the media. On the other hand I think we need to honestly ask ourselves who has or would have some legitimate support if given acknowledgement and discussion of their positions by the media. I think the Libertarian Party is at the head of the line in that regard. However, I do understand most Libertarians and those who knowingly or unknowingly hold Libertarian values vote Republican at present. In order to offer fairness and balance, the Green Party could offer a left counterpart to what would likely result in the siphoning off of GOP votes, if the Libertarians were the only additional parties given coverage by the media.

Here's an idea: Suppose Obama gets re-elected and I think he will and America starts to shift more and more toward the democrats and I also think that is very likely in coming years. Fox News decides they can make the GOP viable two ways. 1). Win the hearts and minds of people in support of the Republican Party, which is their present MO. 2). Divide the Democrats by giving the Green Party their own show on the weekends. The goal isn't to actually advance Green policies but to split the democrats. Then MSNBC counters by giving the Libertarians their own weekend show to divide the GOP. Likewise, the goal isn't to advance Libertarianism but to split the GOP on election day. The net result, both see some success and we start seeing both Green and Libertarian candidates win elections in city councils, school boards, state legislatures and even some congressional seats, the genesis of a true multi-party political culture in America.

Dooble said:

I would even say a one party monopoly with the liberal media slobbering all over the DNC.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. There're plenty of conservative media sources. FOX, CNN, heck even NPR's been bringing in conservative academics to discuss the election.

And furthermore, are you implying that the media is liberal? Or that liberal media covers the DNC too much?

Should they do it? Yes. Should they be required to do it? No.

waas said:

That's not true at all. There're plenty of conservative media sources. FOX, CNN, heck even NPR's been bringing in conservative academics to discuss the election.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. Fox is mostly Centrist (One could argue that Hannity & O'Reilly might tip the network slightly Right). I would say CNN is Left of Center, and NPR is firmly entrenched in the Left.

Dooble said:

That's not true at all. Fox is mostly Centrist (One could argue that Hannity & O'Reilly might tip the network slightly Right). I would say CNN is Left of Center, and NPR is firmly entrenched in the Left.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. :lol:

waas said:

I completely disagree. :lol:

Click to expand...

That goes without saying.

Yes we need a real party that represents US CITIZENS.

One is only for foreign criminals
The other is only for foreign corporations.

Oh my thank you for this thread and my answer is a big yes they should (media) supply an equal platform for other political parties. I went looking at the last several presidential elections and the last time a non republican or democrat was even close to being in the running come election day was 1992 and that man was Ross Perot. Here we are 20 years later and we have a butter vs jam, mustard vs ketchup kind of election process going on. Why is it when it comes time for debates a good chunk of Americans haven't heard of Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Pary, Jill Stein of the Green Party or Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. Are they somehow lesser politics because they aren't red or blue? Are they not capable and willing candidates who have great ideas for the country?

The worst thing is don't foresee this ever changing because the we continue voting in these candidates from the two prime parties. Not enough support for these other candidate because the media doesn't give them the attention they give to the big two. Its a shame no doubt and i hope for the day that this isn't the case but i wont hold my breath.

Kandahar said:

No. Where do you draw the line? The American Nazi Party? The Rent Is Too Damn High Party? Some random nutcase who says he's running for president?

Click to expand...

Whoever is on at the majority of state ballots. That eliminates virtually all of the 3rd parties except for the Liberterians and Greens.

Dooble said:

That's not true at all. Fox is mostly Centrist (One could argue that Hannity & O'Reilly might tip the network slightly Right). I would say CNN is Left of Center, and NPR is firmly entrenched in the Left.

Click to expand...

Is this a joke? CNN domestic is left of center but CNN international is an actual centrist outlet. Fox has essentially become a mouth piece for the GOP. MSNBC has become the mouth piece for the Dems.

So, now that the poll shows 60% support for including minority parties, why are 99% of you still going to vote for the two parties? I hope the minority parties cost the GOP the election, so they will stop ignoring people they need to win elections. If the GOP wants to keep losing elections to tea party and libertarian challengers, then they should by all means keep trying to hide, block, and control them. A libertarian may not be able to win, but they can make sure the GOP loses.

Maybe we could have a longer debate time instead of just cutting it up into smaller portions. As it is, they have too little time and thus evade answering very important questions in detail.

Those 3rd parties went to the sincere effort required to be on the ballot. I would understand if the Specklebang For President campaign were excluded but The Libertarians, not so much.

joko104 said:

It is amazing how many answered yes. What they are saying is that really Obama and Romney should have only had 15 minutes each in the debates - with equal time to candidates that less than 10% of voters could even name.

And why those two 3rd parties only??? Because the OP - in total contradiction - wants to exclude other 3rd parties from having a voice?

There are SIXTEEN THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT. So REALLY, the OP and majority on the forum think that Obama and Romney should only be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in the debates, with 16 other candidates "having equal time."

But why limit it to Party candidates? Why not all candidates for President in the USA? Then Obama and Romney get 18 seconds each in the debate.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

So, now that the poll shows 60% support for including minority parties, why are 99% of you still going to vote for the two parties? I hope the minority parties cost the GOP the election, so they will stop ignoring people they need to win elections. If the GOP wants to keep losing elections to tea party and libertarian challengers, then they should by all means keep trying to hide, block, and control them. A libertarian may not be able to win, but they can make sure the GOP loses.

Click to expand...

Because places like Debate Politics isn't representative of an average cross section of society. People who actively partake of places like this tend to be more pro-active and aware of politics in general. People who would never come to a place like this are more prone to fall for sound bites and pep rallies disguised as campaign speeches.

That doesn't mean that people here are correct in their conclusions, just that people here are more likely to dig deeper than what is presented to them on the surface.

Absolutely. We're spreading Democracy through out the middle east, but we don't even have it here.

radcen said:

Because places like Debate Politics isn't representative of an average cross section of society. People who actively partake of places like this tend to be more pro-active and aware of politics in general. People who would never come to a place like this are more prone to fall for sound bites and pep rallies disguised as campaign speeches.

That doesn't mean that people here are correct in their conclusions, just that people here are more likely to dig deeper than what is presented to them on the surface.

Click to expand...

Thats not what I asked. What I asked was why 60% of those polled thinks 3rd parties should be included, but 99% of those polled continue to exclude them. It was rhetorical. The answer is hypocrasy of course.