• 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 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

Do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?


  • Total voters
    71

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
So im taking a class called "Political Parties and Elections", and i was sitting in class today and i thought why should pretty popular 3rd parties not be allowed on the national debate?

What are your thought; do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?
 
So im taking a class called "Political Parties and Elections", and i was sitting in class today and i thought why should pretty popular 3rd parties not be allowed on the national debate?

What are your thought; do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?

If they are sufficiently popular. I don't think any of the candidates would've merited inclusion last year, although Gary Johnson was close. I wouldn't mind having some relatively high polling candidates in the debates, but allowing just every third party that fields a candidate in a debate would be too much. I'd probably lower the current threshold of polling, which I believe is 5%, to something like 2%.
 
I thought Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were in the national debates? Weren't they third party candidates?
 
So im taking a class called "Political Parties and Elections", and i was sitting in class today and i thought why should pretty popular 3rd parties not be allowed on the national debate?

What are your thought; do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?

Put on the top two third parties might be the way to go.
 
So im taking a class called "Political Parties and Elections", and i was sitting in class today and i thought why should pretty popular 3rd parties not be allowed on the national debate?

What are your thought; do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?

Not only should 3rd parties be allowed on the national debate, we should also change our voting system to allow 3rd party politicians to be elected into office.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I thought Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were in the national debates? Weren't they third party candidates?

Ross Perot was included in the national debates in 1992.

But Ralph Nader was actually barred from entry to the presidential debates in 2000.

And Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party were not in any national debates with Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

In fact a debate between third-party candidates was held in Chicago sponsored by news outlet Russia Today and moderated by Larry King. This debate included Johnson and Stein, as well as Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. The debate was streamed on YouTube and can be found there.

Buddy Roemer also ran for President, and sought the nomination of the Reform Party. Early in the election season, he was on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC and got a bit of national exposure that way, but he said in an interview of the podcast "Dan Carlin's Common Sense" he said how the executives at all the major media outlets refused to allow him on so as to give better chances to the candidates for the major two parties.

Also, it should be noted that presidential debates were overseen by the League of Women Voters in 1976, 1980, and 1984. However, they decided to end this, condemning the demands of the two-party system.

The League of Women Voters said:
The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
—League President Nancy M. Neuman, LWV October 03, 1988

In 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was created. It is not a government organization. Rather, it is a non-profit corporation created by the Democratic and Republican parties. It is funded by contributions from foundations and corporations.

Considering the Commission on Presidential Debates is controlled by both the Democratic and Republican parties, it is in their interests to prevent third-party candidates from getting any national exposure.

Which they do so however they can.

So our practice in conducting presidential debates is just as corrupt as everything else is in the United States.
 
The Dems and the Reps make all the rules regarding the debates. They saw what happened when Ross Perot was allowed to join the debates and have effectively made it impossible for that to ever happen again.

As long as the overwhelming majority of voters continue to blindly support the "two-party" system we have in this country, we'll never see another "alternative" candidate in a nationally televised presidential debate.
 
Ross Perot was included in the national debates in 1992.

But Ralph Nader was actually barred from entry to the presidential debates in 2000.

And Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party were not in any national debates with Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

In fact a debate between third-party candidates was held in Chicago sponsored by news outlet Russia Today and moderated by Larry King. This debate included Johnson and Stein, as well as Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. The debate was streamed on YouTube and can be found there.

Buddy Roemer also ran for President, and sought the nomination of the Reform Party. Early in the election season, he was on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC and got a bit of national exposure that way, but he said in an interview of the podcast "Dan Carlin's Common Sense" he said how the executives at all the major media outlets refused to allow him on so as to give better chances to the candidates for the major two parties.

Also, it should be noted that presidential debates were overseen by the League of Women Voters in 1976, 1980, and 1984. However, they decided to end this, condemning the demands of the two-party system.



In 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was created. It is not a government organization. Rather, it is a non-profit corporation created by the Democratic and Republican parties. It is funded by contributions from foundations and corporations.

Considering the Commission on Presidential Debates is controlled by both the Democratic and Republican parties, it is in their interests to prevent third-party candidates from getting any national exposure.

Which they do so however they can.

So our practice in conducting presidential debates is just as corrupt as everything else is in the United States.


Thanks for the info Sam! How did Ross Perot get in the debates in 1992?
 
Ross Perot was included in the national debates in 1992.

But Ralph Nader was actually barred from entry to the presidential debates in 2000.

And Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party were not in any national debates with Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

In fact a debate between third-party candidates was held in Chicago sponsored by news outlet Russia Today and moderated by Larry King. This debate included Johnson and Stein, as well as Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. The debate was streamed on YouTube and can be found there.

Buddy Roemer also ran for President, and sought the nomination of the Reform Party. Early in the election season, he was on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC and got a bit of national exposure that way, but he said in an interview of the podcast "Dan Carlin's Common Sense" he said how the executives at all the major media outlets refused to allow him on so as to give better chances to the candidates for the major two parties.

Also, it should be noted that presidential debates were overseen by the League of Women Voters in 1976, 1980, and 1984. However, they decided to end this, condemning the demands of the two-party system.



In 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was created. It is not a government organization. Rather, it is a non-profit corporation created by the Democratic and Republican parties. It is funded by contributions from foundations and corporations.

Considering the Commission on Presidential Debates is controlled by both the Democratic and Republican parties, it is in their interests to prevent third-party candidates from getting any national exposure.

Which they do so however they can.

So our practice in conducting presidential debates is just as corrupt as everything else is in the United States.

Very nice analysis!

Kudos.
 
100% should be included. I understand the "we can't include everyone" argument as you can aggregate up to a number of candidates which makes the debates difficult and too long; but there's no reason we should cap the number at 2. Political competition is a necessity to keeping a Republic.
 
100% should be included. I understand the "we can't include everyone" argument as you can aggregate up to a number of candidates which makes the debates difficult and too long; but there's no reason we should cap the number at 2. Political competition is a necessity to keeping a Republic.

The number is not capped at 2, it is 15 % poll support. If you reach that barrier, you will be invited. As such the premise of this poll is incorrect.
 
The number is not capped at 2, it is 15 % poll support. If you reach that barrier, you will be invited. As such the premise of this poll is incorrect.

It's artificially inflated and controlled to specifically keep third parties out. The premise of the poll is in fact functionally correct.
 
I think we should include 2 third parties and cap it at four of the most popular.
 
It's artificially inflated and controlled to specifically keep third parties out. The premise of the poll is in fact functionally correct.

Don't expect your well-reasoned, substantive argument to have an effect on the shills for the two-party system.
 
It's artificially inflated and controlled to specifically keep third parties out. The premise of the poll is in fact functionally correct.

The premise of the poll is that third parties cannot take part. This is in fact incorrect. All the third parties need do is actually appeal to a portion of the populace. Since the answer is that third parties are allowed, the poll options are incorrect. You could make an argument for a lower threshold, but that is not what the poll asks.
 
Don't expect your well-reasoned, substantive argument to have an effect on the shills for the two-party system.

Shouldn't there be a well reasoned argument to argue against? I mean, facts are actually important to most people...
 
The premise of the poll is that third parties cannot take part. This is in fact incorrect. All the third parties need do is actually appeal to a portion of the populace. Since the answer is that third parties are allowed, the poll options are incorrect. You could make an argument for a lower threshold, but that is not what the poll asks.

3rd parties cannot functionally take part because the rules set by the controlling party are specifically put at such a high level as to purposefully exclude third party participation.
 
3rd parties cannot functionally take part because the rules set by the controlling party are specifically put at such a high level as to purposefully exclude third party participation.

Well, no. Third parties do not take part because third parties do not appeal to enough people. If third parties stopped playing the victim and actually tried to promote issues important to American voters, they will get included. For god's sake, Perot figured that out, it can't be that hard to do.
 
Well, no. Third parties do not take part because third parties do not appeal to enough people. If third parties stopped playing the victim and actually tried to promote issues important to American voters, they will get included. For god's sake, Perot figured that out, it can't be that hard to do.

Not hard at all. Step One: Be a billionaire...

Perot showed that if you are independently wealthy, it doesn't matter how insane you are. Media exposure will get you over 10%. Which is why the rules were changed after that to prevent third party competition. If Perot got over 10% because he was able to buy exposure; how much could more reasoned political philosophies garner if given equal opportunity to compete?
 
Perot showed that if you are independently wealthy, it doesn't matter how insane you are. Media exposure will get you over 10%. Which is why the rules were changed after that to prevent third party competition. If Perot got over 10% because he was able to buy exposure; how much could more reasoned political philosophies garner if given equal opportunity to compete?

Speach is free in this country. You can get all the exposure you want. 15 % threshold is not that outrageous, if you can't get that much support, you are not winning and it defeats the point of the debate to have you there. Build support, and the rest will come. If you can't build support, then you are not getting elected, and there is no point in having you at the debate.
 
The number is not capped at 2, it is 15 % poll support. If you reach that barrier, you will be invited. As such the premise of this poll is incorrect.

That is the only limitation? That seems very reasonable. Do you know how the determination was made when the debates were run by the League of Women Voters?
 
Speach is free in this country. You can get all the exposure you want.

Not really. The coverage is very limited, purposefully, competition is eliminated, purposefully. You cannot get "all the exposure you want" less you are independently wealthy. The rules are specifically set up against that and the press goes along for the ride. You got maybe like CSPAN or Russia Today apparently; but that's it. How much of the third parties did you see covered in the major media? Is that "all the exposure you want"?

15 % threshold is not that outrageous, if you can't get that much support, you are not winning and it defeats the point of the debate to have you there. Build support, and the rest will come. If you can't build support, then you are not getting elected, and there is no point in having you at the debate.

It's super outrageous is a system of controlled exposure and manipulated press. You're endorsing the whole Catch-22. Need exposure to garner support, but you have to garner support to gain exposure. I don't think that it necessarily means that you allow everyone in; but proper political competition is important for the People to keep a Republic. As is, the rules and coverage is certainly set up against exposure for third party candidates.
 
Not really. The coverage is very limited, purposefully, competition is eliminated, purposefully. You cannot get "all the exposure you want" less you are independently wealthy. The rules are specifically set up against that and the press goes along for the ride. You got maybe like CSPAN or Russia Today apparently; but that's it. How much of the third parties did you see covered in the major media? Is that "all the exposure you want"?



It's super outrageous is a system of controlled exposure and manipulated press. You're endorsing the whole Catch-22. Need exposure to garner support, but you have to garner support to gain exposure. I don't think that it necessarily means that you allow everyone in; but proper political competition is important for the People to keep a Republic. As is, the rules and coverage is certainly set up against exposure for third party candidates.

Have you heard of these things, we call them free speech and free market. That means you can do the exact same things successful candidates do. Step 1: adopt a stance on issues people support. Step 2: promote yourself and your stances. Step 3: cross the popularity threshold. Step 4: ??? Step 5: Profit.
 
Have you heard of these things, we call them free speech and free market. That means you can do the exact same things successful candidates do. Step 1: adopt a stance on issues people support. Step 2: promote yourself and your stances. Step 3: cross the popularity threshold. Step 4: ??? Step 5: Profit.

I've heard of those, great ideals we no longer have. Speech is limited, press is controlled. Now to garner the support you talk of, one must be independently wealthy (as shown by Ross Perot) so that they can buy the support.

Again, you're endorsing the Catch-22.
 
Back
Top Bottom