• 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
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your response here sounds more like a problem with the public, than with more ideas participating.
Yes I do demonize my opponent, because the standards for entry are inflated to prevent entry.

Supporting that is wrong, imo.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lots of parties are on enough State ballots that they could technically win the election. Ergo, if that were the qualifier, many more parties would be allowed access to the debates and thus would gain the exposure necessary to start to garner support for their platform.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't actually appealing to more people be the first step to restoring competition?
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Getting on to 51% of state ballots is far, far easier than getting 15% of the national vote.
This is the area where grass roots campaigns can work, the rest needs to be played out in the major media.
 
Ikari said:
Ahh the ol' The American People Are Too Stupid To Hear More Than Just The Two Major Party Lines, defense.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the good old mock and ridicule the person you're debating rather than addressing their point or highlighting issues with their argument. You and Harry are doing well with that.
 
Redress said:
Equal access to media...so you support government control of the media?
Click to expand...

That's what we have. This is the future of the Republic, this is the ability of the People to control and limit the government through proper choice and educated decision making. It's important, it is necessary if we are to keep the Republic. Political competition and an open political system is a must.
 
Zyphlin said:
Ahh, the good old mock and ridicule the person you're debating rather than addressing their point or highlighting issues with their argument. You and Harry are doing well with that.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Redress
 
Ikari said:
Ahh the ol' The American People Are Too Stupid To Hear More Than Just The Two Major Party Lines, defense.
Click to expand...

No, it was actually the "time is limited" defense.
 
Redress said:
Wouldn't actually appealing to more people be the first step to restoring competition?
Click to expand...

Being able to have a forum through which you can reach the People is the first step; without that you cannot "appeal to more people".
 
Ikari said:
Being able to have a forum through which you can reach the People is the first step; without that you cannot "appeal to more people".
Click to expand...

So debates are your only access to voters? Interesting...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Your response here sounds more like a problem with the public, than with more ideas participating.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is an issue with the public. None the less, it's also reality. And even beyond that, the fact you vie wit more as a public problem than a participation one is irrelevant to the notion that it's a legitimat ealternative reason why someone may view the issue in that fashion other than "fear".

Yes I do demonize my opponent, because the standards for entry are inflated to prevent entry.
Click to expand...

Clearly showing your inability to even debate or argue your own point as you degrade your argument to the point of making fraudulent statements as a means of demonization and debasing your opponent based on nothing but your own ignorant stereotyped delusions of what you believe they think.
 
Redress said:
So debates are your only access to voters? Interesting...
Click to expand...

Debates and media exposure are the primary access to voters in national elections, yes.
 
Ikari said:
Better than only allowing 2 parties.
Click to expand...

I'm completely sympathetic to parties outside of the 2 main parties. I'd be one of the first to get behind an amendment creating a proportional voting system or run off elections.....and here's the but....due to how elections happen in this country people generally consolidate before elections into the two major parties. Those two parties represent 96ish% of the population to a degree. I kind of want those two individuals to have as much time as possible to answer the debate questions. Maybe the highest represented 3rd party canidate would be nice to provide another view but 5 total is just too much.
 
Ikari said:
That's no excuse to limit the choices to 2.
Click to expand...

I did not claim it was. It was an argument as to why to have a limit. It is not currently limited to 2, it is limited to those who reach an arbitrary cutoff.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Getting on to 51% of state ballots is far, far easier than getting 15% of the national vote.
This is the area where grass roots campaigns can work, the rest needs to be played out in the major media.
Click to expand...

None of which changes the inherent catch-22 nature of your own standard.

I'm fine with you having that standard...or Ikari having his 5 party standard...but don't bitch about the current situation based upon an arugment of it being a "catch-22" and that making it bad, and then present your own alternative containing it's very own catch-22
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't know.
I do know that Bill Clinton wanted him in the debates.

I read a book about it several years ago.
It's not a snipe at Bill Clinton, if that's how you're taking it.
Click to expand...


I'm not seeing it as a snipe, I am seeing it has superfluous if Perot already had 15% approval.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm completely sympathetic to parties outside of the 2 main parties. I'd be one of the first to get behind an amendment creating a proportional voting system or run off elections.....and here's the but....due to how elections happen in this country people generally consolidate before elections into the two major parties. Those two parties represent 96ish% of the population to a degree. I kind of want those two individuals to have as much time as possible to answer the debate questions. Maybe the highest represented 3rd party canidate would be nice to provide another view but 5 total is just too much.
Click to expand...

Why is 5 too much? Why should the information the People can hear and the political platforms they are exposed to be limited to under 5? Could it be that the perception of 2 parties only is perpetuated through control of the election cycles, arbitrary limiters placed on the system to specifically allow only two, media misrepresentation and silence on competing political ideologies, campaign finance restrictions, etc. be the reason why it is presented to the People that there are only 2 choices?
 
Zyphlin said:
Perhaps it is an issue with the public. None the less, it's also reality. And even beyond that, the fact you vie wit more as a public problem than a participation one is irrelevant to the notion that it's a legitimat ealternative reason why someone may view the issue in that fashion other than "fear".
Click to expand...

Is that really a good reason to limit debate participants?
You say, "well they only have X% of support."
Yet the very reason they may have so little support is because there is no inclusion.

Zyphlin said:
Clearly showing your inability to even debate or argue your own point as you degrade your argument to the point of making fraudulent statements as a means of demonization and debasing your opponent based on nothing but your own ignorant stereotyped delusions of what you believe they think.
Click to expand...

Sorry, some of these things should be self evident.
The operations and negotiations between the parties included in the debates, more or less show that they are a farce, that they are not debates.
Supporting dishonesty is not ok in my book.
 
Redress said:
I did not claim it was. It was an argument as to why to have a limit. It is not currently limited to 2, it is limited to those who reach an arbitrary cutoff.
Click to expand...

That cutoff being specifically placed by those already in power at a level unobtainable by others through a controlled system of finance contributions, limited media exposure, and exclusion from debates.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure...for the most part. There have also been situations in debates where individuals opinions have changed (first debate in the last election comes to mind) due to a debate).

I know it's not a new concept but multiparty debates generally happen in countries with multiparty systems where a canidate with 15% of the vote could technically be a majority in a coalition party in charge. It's a little different when even 10% of the vote gives you no power in this country. If a third party polled at 10% across the country there's a good chance they would have no elected officials in power.
 
HG, they do not have that support by the time of the debates. The debates are irrelevant to the support they garner beforehand.
 
Ikari said:
That cutoff being specifically placed by those already in power at a level unobtainable by others through a controlled system of finance contributions, limited media exposure, and exclusion from debates.
Click to expand...

Except that it has been reached, so it is not unreachable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom