• 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
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is outrageous when from the beginning you are marginalized because the major media outlets know you won't be included in the presidential debates.
Voter ignorance prevents third party inclusion, the only way to get their inclusion is through mass media.

But you can't buy mass media without deep pockets or lots of donations.
Of all the things you can be reasonable about, this is not one.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I am endorsing people getting support to gain access to presidential debates. If you can't gain support, you are not relevant to the process. Third parties can fundraise, can buy advertising, all the things the big parties do. That they are not successful at it is not the fault of the system.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's precisely it, you get ****ed both ways by "reasonable" requirements.
 
Redress said:
No, I am endorsing people getting support to gain access to presidential debates. If you can't gain support, you are not relevant to the process. Third parties can fundraise, can buy advertising, all the things the big parties do. That they are not successful at it is not the fault of the system.
Click to expand...

You can't fund raise without media exposure and you won't get media exposure without fund raising.
He's 100% right, you're supporting a catch 22.
 
Redress said:
No, I am endorsing people getting support to gain access to presidential debates. If you can't gain support, you are not relevant to the process. Third parties can fundraise, can buy advertising, all the things the big parties do. That they are not successful at it is not the fault of the system.
Click to expand...

You cannot gain the support without access to the system. The main parties have HUGE campaign chests, the rules for donating make it so third parties do not. That means they cannot buy the advertising and do all the things the big parties do less their candidate is independently wealthy. They cannot gain the support because they get no coverage and until they are allowed equal access to the system, that will remain the case.

As I said, you are endorsing the Catch-22.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
IIRC, Bill Clinton wanted him included.
Click to expand...

How did Bill Clinton influence the rules for debate inclusion? Are you saying Perot did not have 15% public support before the debates?
 
IMO The two parties D & R have hosed us all.
A sensible working man has no chance of getting on a ballot anywhere!
As long as the 2 parties make the election rules nobody else has a chance!
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You can't fund raise without media exposure and you won't get media exposure without fund raising.
He's 100% right, you're supporting a catch 22.
Click to expand...

You certainly can fundraise without media exposure. The media is free to cover who and what they want. The limits are not the fault of the system, but the fault of the third parties, who tend to not have platforms that are not well received. Again, support issues and priorities that Americans like, and the rest will follow. Libertarians and Green party and so on do not do this, then blame the system.
 
Allowing in 2 additional parties is no more "fair" than allowing in 0 additional parties. In both case, the party left on the outside feels they are being "slighted".

I would suggest a change to the rules regarding debates:

A qualified candidate is one representing a party that will be represented on 90% of state ballots.

A qualified poll is one that includes each qualified candidate when asking for voter preference.

A candidate should only be able to attend a debate if he polled above 10% in a qualified poll during a one month period prior to the debate.

If there are no qualified polls (IE no polling company adheres to the 90% rule), then all qualified candidates can attend the debate.
Click to expand...

You have to show that you can have a national presence on ballots so that you have a realistic oppertunity to win if you got support. You have to show that you can actually garner enough public support to warrant being given the additional time and exposure at the expense of other candidates. If you reach those two levels, then you absolutely should be included in the debates.
 
Redress said:
You certainly can fundraise without media exposure. The media is free to cover who and what they want. The limits are not the fault of the system, but the fault of the third parties, who tend to not have platforms that are not well received. Again, support issues and priorities that Americans like, and the rest will follow. Libertarians and Green party and so on do not do this, then blame the system.
Click to expand...

No not really.
You're supporting a lousy excuse to continue the current system.
There are more than 2 "third" parties.
 
Why would we not allow any presidential candidate into the national presidential candidate debates?

Thanks to the internet, this is becoming more and more of a non issue. People are learning to get their information from the net, rather than the evening news. Mainstream media is taking too many hits from pundits like Stewart and Colbert, and too many people are realizing that the lot of them are completely, ireversebly....full of bull****. So, they turn to the internet.

Personally, I think this would ALL be solved by simply creating a public fund for campaigning. The end.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No not really.
You're supporting a lousy excuse to continue the current system.
There are more than 2 "third" parties.
Click to expand...


I know, I just selected the "biggest"(relatively) two.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No not really.
You're supporting a lousy excuse to continue the current system.
There are more than 2 "third" parties.
Click to expand...

Redress doesn't realize this, of course....because those other parties can't get onto state ballots, they can't get onto national debates, and due to those two measures, they can't get enough awareness about themselves to generate 2 party threatening levels of revenue. Resulting in....Redress not knowing about them.

But clearly, THAT is not the issue, here. The issue is, those other parties to don't tow the two party line, and therefor, no one likes them. Has NOTHING to do with not being a household name, thanks entirely to mainstream media.
 
Redress said:
You certainly can fundraise without media exposure. The media is free to cover who and what they want. The limits are not the fault of the system, but the fault of the third parties, who tend to not have platforms that are not well received. Again, support issues and priorities that Americans like, and the rest will follow. Libertarians and Green party and so on do not do this, then blame the system.
Click to expand...

It's because the system is specifically set up against their success. The Republic is on the line, we must have open political competition.

Michael Badnarik and David Cobb (Libertarian and Green Presidential Candidate) obtained a legal Order to Show Cause that would have allowed he and David into the Presidential elections. In the attempt to serve the papers at the Presidential Debates, the two of them were arrested and taken to jail, held until the debate was over. And how many major news organizations carried the news that two Presidential Candidates on the ballot in all 50 States were arrested outside the Presidential Debates while trying to serve legal papers that would have allowed their access into the debates? None.

That's the system you endorse. One in which the main party uses force of State to purposefully keep third parties out of the spotlight. One in which we arrest Presidential candidates instead of letting them have equal access to the system. Land of the Free, yes? Where is that free speech you talk of? Where is that "free market" you run your mouth about? It's not there. The system is controlled, it is regulated, and it is specifically set to destroy political competition. That is the reality, that is the measured state of our political system. But keep endorsing the Catch-22 cause that will drive us to a better place :roll:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It was part of Memorandum of Understanding, the contract drawn up before the debates between both candidates.
Click to expand...

Perot did not have 15% approval before the debates?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No not really.
You're supporting a lousy excuse to continue the current system.
There are more than 2 "third" parties.
Click to expand...

So, we hear you complaining...now how about offer up a solution or alternative? I've done such...what about you? How do you believe debate access should be determined?
 
Zyphlin said:
So, we hear you complaining...now how about offer up a solution or alternative? I've done such...what about you? How do you believe debate access should be determined?
Click to expand...

Top 5 parties by popular vote.
 
Ikari said:
It's because the system is specifically set up against their success. The Republic is on the line, we must have open political competition.

Michael Badnarik and David Cobb (Libertarian and Green Presidential Candidate) obtained a legal Order to Show Cause that would have allowed he and David into the Presidential elections. In the attempt to serve the papers at the Presidential Election, the two of them were arrested and taken to jail, held until the debate was over. And how many major news organizations carried the news that two Presidential Candidates on the ballot in all 50 States were arrested outside the Presidential Debates while trying to serve legal papers that would have allowed their access into the debates? None.

That's the system you endorse. One in which the main party uses force of State to purposefully keep third parties out of the spotlight. One in which we arrest Presidential candidates instead of letting them have equal access to the system. Land of the Free, yes? Where is that free speech you talk of? Where is that "free market" you run your mouth about? It's not there. The system is controlled, it is regulated, and it is specifically set to destroy political competition. That is the reality, that is the measured state of our political system. But keep endorsing the Catch-22 cause that will drive us to a better place :roll:
Click to expand...

What is funny is Libertarians are usually opposed to free handouts, until it's them that want it.
 
Zyphlin said:
So, we hear you complaining...now how about offer up a solution or alternative? I've done such...what about you? How do you believe debate access should be determined?
Click to expand...

Red and I have gone round about this before.
He believes things are fine as is, I do not.

Not much room there for alternatives.
 
Redress said:
What is funny is Libertarians are usually opposed to free handouts, until it's them that want it.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for free handouts. I'm looking for free and open competition. But don't let that detour you from making snide comments that address nothing and deflect from points made.
 
Ikari said:
Top 5 parties by popular vote.
Click to expand...

So basically your solution is to include your favored party, and screw the rest. Hypocrisy in action!
 
Redress said:
So basically your solution is to include your favored party, and screw the rest. Hypocrisy in action!
Click to expand...

Nope, we can make it more if need be. But at least 5 parties should be present. Any other snide comment you have that doesn't actually address anything and instead seeks to deflect away from any point made in effort to marginalize arguments so that you don't have to deal with them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom