• 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
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.

You have it. Gain support. Start by looking at what people in America actually find important, and stand for those things. Get rid of things from your platform that people are seriously opposed to. Until then you are never going to have any kind of support.
 
Top 5 parties by popular vote.

Okay, an alternative has been given by at least one person. Now, let's use the standard arguments...

That's not fair. It's gamining the system. Those parties outside of the top five are prohibited by the machines of the parties above them from gaining the support and access necessary to reach the top 5. It's a catch-22. You can't get into the top 5 of the popular vote because you're not allowed to get the same access as the other people, and because you don't have the same access you can't get into the top 5.

What you propose isn't a solution, it's just the same system but presented in a way that's more beneficial to your particular interests. Many of the same complaints you and others lob out against the current system would still exist in the system you propose, it's just seemingly ignored because now your guys are in.
 
I'm not opposed to "free" handouts, not universally.
Sorry, but you can't peg us all into square holes.

That might explain the use of the word "usually". I put it in for a reason.
 
You have it. Gain support. Start by looking at what people in America actually find important, and stand for those things. Get rid of things from your platform that people are seriously opposed to. Until then you are never going to have any kind of support.

If you're ideas are so strong, popular and powerful, what do you have to fear from including others in a debate?
 
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.

Cool. Good to know about you and Red.

So what alternatives do you suggest that will fix the issues you claim are inherent in the current system? I'm asking you, not Red.
 
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.

Actually it sounds like you're looking for closed competition, just closed at a later point so your guy can get in.
 
Okay, an alternative has been given by at least one person. Now, let's use the standard arguments...

That's not fair. It's gamining the system. Those parties outside of the top five are prohibited by the machines of the parties above them from gaining the support and access necessary to reach the top 5. It's a catch-22. You can't get into the top 5 of the popular vote because you're not allowed to get the same access as the other people, and because you don't have the same access you can't get into the top 5.

What you propose isn't a solution, it's just the same system but presented in a way that's more beneficial to your particular interests. Many of the same complaints you and others lob out against the current system would still exist in the system you propose, it's just seemingly ignored because now your guys are in.

There are lots of things to clean up. McCain-Feingold needs to be done away with, corporate contributions controlled, equal access to media, being allowed in the debates, etc. I'm all for major changes to our election sequence in order to ensure proper political competition.

I don't see why y'all are so opposed to political competition.
 
Nope, we can make it more if need be.

Who and how would that "need" be judged? What makes you choose "five"? Why is the 6th leading party not worthy of exposure by the default?

I'm not saying your idea is bad. I'm saying that it's not solving many of the same issues you claim with the current system.
 
Who and how would that "need" be judged? What makes you choose "five"?

5 was an arbitrary number greater than two. I don't just want to get Libertarians into the debates, I want to get other opposing views in as well.
 
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?

What do we mean by allowed? they are certainly allowed now. However, there is no compulsion to make networks include them. As for ballots, what exactly are the laws governing them? We might consider changing some.
 
If you're ideas are so strong, popular and powerful, what do you have to fear from including others in a debate?

It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with concentrating on the views of the 2 canidates that generally represent 96-97% of the population. Already these debates seem to go by fast with short abbreviated answers to complicated questions. Either those abbreviated answers are shorter or the debate length is more than doubled.
 
Actually it sounds like you're looking for closed competition, just closed at a later point so your guy can get in.

Not just my guy. But even if we didn't address the other plethora of problems plaguing our elections, ensuring that more than just the main parties are in the debate can go a long way to restoring political competition.
 
If you're ideas are so strong, popular and powerful, what do you have to fear from including others in a debate?

An ignorant assumption that ones belief on this is based on "fear".

Debate times are limited. The american public's attention span is generally low. And we already have a massively underengaged voting base as is. Diluting an hour and a half debate by adding, lets say 3, additional voices to it...when those voices are found to be more attractive to less than 1% of the American public...could be viewed as doing a disservice to the political process and the American People. A person could believe that they don't need to be added to the debate because it would be a detriment to the political process rather than "fear". But because you have an agenda, you immedietely leap to demonize your opponent.
 
If you're ideas are so strong, popular and powerful, what do you have to fear from including others in a debate?

I do not. False argument. I support a threshold of some sort so the debate can serve a useful purpose. Any candidate from any party that can surpass that threshold can and should be able to debate.
 
I don't see why y'all are so opposed to political competition.

I can't answer that. Since it's a figment of you imagination that you've created in your head, only you can answer it.
 
It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with concentrating on the views of the 2 canidates that generally represent 96-97% of the population. Already these debates seem to go by fast with short abbreviated answers to complicated questions. Either those abbreviated answers are shorter or the debate length is more than doubled.

Well for one, they are staged debates.
So it's nothing more than a repetition of talking points and canned answers.
Others have done multiparty debates before.
It's not a new concept.
 
An ignorant assumption that ones belief on this is based on "fear".

Debate times are limited. The american public's attention span is generally low. And we already have a massively underengaged voting base as is. Diluting an hour and a half debate by adding, lets say 3, additional voices to it...when those voices are found to be more attractive to less than 1% of the American public...could be viewed as doing a disservice to the political process and the American People. A person could believe that they don't need to be added to the debate because it would be a detriment to the political process rather than "fear". But because you have an agenda, you immedietely leap to demonize your opponent.

Ahh the ol' The American People Are Too Stupid To Hear More Than Just The Two Major Party Lines, defense.
 
if your party is on the ballot in all 50 states ( or possibly a majority of the ballots), your party should be at the debates.

a simple and fair rule


supporting the status quo duopoly is a choice, it's not a necessity.
 
Those who qualify for a majority (51%) of state ballots, should be included.

Okay. Once again, many of the arguments you and Ikari are making can also be applied to that. You create a scenario that still has an inherent Catch-22. You can't get onto the ballots without exposure, you can't get exposure if you don't get on the ballots.
 
There are lots of things to clean up. McCain-Feingold needs to be done away with, corporate contributions controlled, equal access to media, being allowed in the debates, etc. I'm all for major changes to our election sequence in order to ensure proper political competition.

I don't see why y'all are so opposed to political competition.

Equal access to media...so you support government control of the media?
 
Back
Top Bottom