• 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 the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Pres

should it be made easier for more candidates in the Pres debates?

  • Total voters
    32
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Dragonfly said:
Maybe. Maybe not. Isn't it possible they're just "crazier" because they're already so hamstrung by the process that you can't really get a serious candidate to even waste their time and money? Even if you were a driver capable of winning a race, would you spend the time and money racing knowing you would never even qualify for the start?
Click to expand...

Not maybe, definitely. Third parties tend to be very, very similar to one of the big two with a couple of elements blown way out of proportion. Their candidates tend to be extremists. These aren't people who can win the race, these are people still looking for the keys and trying to start the car with their psychic powers.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
If ALL CANDIDATES mean everybody on the ballot for President, that could be a rather large crowd on stage especially once word of this change gets out.

So how do you get around the normal objection that the vast vast majority of voters have no interest in the little third party candidates and parties and just want to hear the big two - or in rare years possible three?
Click to expand...

If the vast majority of voters have no interest in third parties it is due to the fact most voters do not know they exist.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

The debates are pathetic.

They are so rigid and structured as to shed almost no light on candidates.

You want a debate? Throw all the candidates in a room for at least 3 hours with no moderator, make sure they cannot communicate with their 'people' and have the masses ask them questions via the Internet...a free for all.
No time limits, no self-serving moderators who are trying to get more face time - asking one stupid question after another and above all; make it long enough and free form enough that the candidates true natures start to show through.

The debates now are almost a total joke as the candidates spend days practising with their people for them and their 30 second sound bite answers.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

If I was a Republican I'd be against giving a higher profile to a third party. My guess is that a viable third party would be a conservative creature and would draw more votes away from the GOP than the Democratic Party.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

I've always been ambivalent about the utility of debates in general. Just because a candidate does well in a debate (or conversely if he or she does poorly) is not an indicator of how well they would perform as President.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Sherman123 said:
I've always been ambivalent about the utility of debates in general. Just because a candidate does well in a debate (or conversely if he or she does poorly) is not an indicator of how well they would perform as President.
Click to expand...

Well that's true, I suppose we could have them arm wrestle, or take an IQ test, but it's difficult to get more than sound bites from these guys, unless they're in the very comfortable arms of a loyal audience, and then it's dripping with patronizing cheerleaders. Point in case. Cruz's "imagine" speech yesterday morning. "Imagine a president that really, really, really secured our borders", lol. No president has ever secured our borders. And until there's no more benefit to corporate America of porous borders, none will. How about, "imagine filling out your tax return on a postcard, imagine no more IRS", another lol. No revenue service to mail those post cards to, no revenue service to process those monies, monitor and revue them for accuracy, no more IRS. How about no more abortions, too? And you should have heard the hysterical crowd.

No, I'll take the debates short as they are, where such assertions can be CHALLENGED.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

TheDemSocialist said:
Recently there has been some debate around the Presidential Debates, and how many candidates should be invited. A new group is looking to press for a change in the rules to make it easier for 3rd parties or independent candidates into the debate. Info on that can be found here: New group calls for changes in presidential debate rules - The Washington Post


My question to you is, "should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Presidential debates?"
Click to expand...

I think that numbers are key for determining credibility, otherwise you wind up with people like Lyndon Larouche... I think that polling however should include all viable political parties and polling should be more open to the public: for instance, I've never been polled and I don't know anyone who has. We have to make it easier for other candidates to get their word out as well. I'm for doing something.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

jamesrage said:
If the vast majority of voters have no interest in third parties it is due to the fact most voters do not know they exist.
Click to expand...

What, these people can't read? If there are a dozen names on the ballot, nobody is even curious what any of the ones without the D or the R stand for? Seriously?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

A screw it, just take a candidate, shoot 'em up with Sodium Pentothal (or get the drunk) and have one interviewer ask them a bunch of questions over an hour...then we might find out what they are really about.

:)
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
If ALL CANDIDATES mean everybody on the ballot for President, that could be a rather large crowd on stage especially once word of this change gets out.

So how do you get around the normal objection that the vast vast majority of voters have no interest in the little third party candidates and parties and just want to hear the big two - or in rare years possible three?
Click to expand...

The third party candidates have little interest because they can't compete for bandwidth with the 2 major parties. If people heard from them, interest would increase.

Of course that would upset many posters on both sides who are shills of the two. Would you be upset if it took attention away from your Dem candidate?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

DA60 said:
A screw it, just take a candidate, shoot 'em up with Sodium Pentothal (or get the drunk) and have one interviewer ask them a bunch of questions over an hour...then we might find out what they are really about.

:)
Click to expand...

"Well of course we don't want blacks voting....unless they vote along the wishes of (insert name of corporation here)."
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
But yet, third party advocates wallow in the belief that if somehow they could just get in on the debates all their problems would be solved. What a joke.

Lets look at all the folks here who pretend that they are LIBERTARIAN but on election day go to the polls and end up voting REPUBLICAN.
Click to expand...
And exactly how are they supposed to vote Libertarian if there isn't a candidate on the ticket? Additionally, the presence of a LP candidate doesn't mean that they are the best person for the job. In one of our House elections, the LP candidate was invited and participated in the local debate at the university. Sadly, he simply could not present himself well, and spoke mainly in buzz words. Both the Republician and the Democrat were very good. In this particular race I ended up voting for the Dem. I have also voted for the Republican in a later race because the Democrat running for that one wasn't any good.

Do you have any statistics to show how much libertarians are voting Republician?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

rocket88 said:
"Well of course we don't want blacks voting....unless they vote along the wishes of (insert name of corporation here)."
Click to expand...

Exactly...wouldn't it be a blast to watch?

Hilary Clinton drunk - 'and another thing. What <hiccup> pissed me off with Bill and that Lewinsky slut was not that she blew him. But that he wouldn't share her with me.'
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Cephus said:
What, these people can't read?
Click to expand...

A ballot doesn't tell the voter what issues the candidate stands for.Nor is it the same thing as debating other presidential candidates so that potential voters can get an idea of what issues you stand for.



If there are a dozen names on the ballot,
Click to expand...

A dozen names on the ballot? That is if you are lucky enough to live in a state that does screw third parties out of ballot access.Besides a ballot is not a debate, nor is it name recognition or tell you what issues a candidate stands for.

nobody is even curious what any of the ones without the D or the R stand for? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Assuming you live in a state that doesn't **** 3rd parties out of ballot access is a poll worker is going to inform every single voter what each of these different letters mean and what the candidates stand for? Is there a list of what issues a candidate stands for under the candidate's name on a ballot or even on the voting booth wall? Is there a computer terminal in the voting booth with all the information about all the candidates? So the answers to all those questions is "**** no there isn't any of those things". So it is too late to go "oh I wonder the **** is all those other names letters on the ballot are".
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

jet57 said:
I think that numbers are key for determining credibility, otherwise you wind up with people like Lyndon Larouche... I think that polling however should include all viable political parties and polling should be more open to the public: for instance, I've never been polled and I don't know anyone who has. We have to make it easier for other candidates to get their word out as well. I'm for doing something.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if there was interest in the candidates from all the 'other' parties (i.e. not D or R) then they would make much better showing in the polls. If the grass roots really wants these people to succeed, they need to put their time, energy, creativity, and money where their mouths are, make sure there are enough signatures to get them on the ballot in all 50 states, and make sure they are visible on Fallon or Ellen or Good Morning America or Saturday Night Live or any of the other popular forums for political candidates. Get them face and name recognition, and teach them how to get a message out, and you'll see better poll percentages for them.

I do think a candidate does need 10 to 15% of the polls to be considered at all viable. And you don't want the 'also rans' to take important face time away from a good candidate who does have a chance to be viable and to win.

Having said that, the debates themselves are a recitation of memorized talking points and teach us almost nothing about the candidates other than who has the funniest one liners and delivery style and/or who is the most likable. We very seldom find anything out about them that is useful to determine who would make the best President.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

jamesrage said:
If the vast majority of voters have no interest in third parties it is due to the fact most voters do not know they exist.
Click to expand...

They see the names on the ballot every time they vote.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

rocket88 said:
The third party candidates have little interest because they can't compete for bandwidth with the 2 major parties. If people heard from them, interest would increase.

Of course that would upset many posters on both sides who are shills of the two. Would you be upset if it took attention away from your Dem candidate?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Go for it. My experience has been that third parties do an absolutely crappy job - and that is trying to be polite - of doing all the things that a party needs to do to be viable. I watched in 68 and the American Independent Party with Wallace captured 13% of the vote and even won the electoral votes of five states. I watched Ross Perot take almost a full fifth of the vote in 92.

It can be done if you have an interesting candidate and can organize.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

maquiscat said:
And exactly how are they supposed to vote Libertarian if there isn't a candidate on the ticket? Additionally, the presence of a LP candidate doesn't mean that they are the best person for the job. In one of our House elections, the LP candidate was invited and participated in the local debate at the university. Sadly, he simply could not present himself well, and spoke mainly in buzz words. Both the Republician and the Democrat were very good. In this particular race I ended up voting for the Dem. I have also voted for the Republican in a later race because the Democrat running for that one wasn't any good.

Do you have any statistics to show how much libertarians are voting Republician?
Click to expand...

Fault the Libertarians for not putting a person on the ticket.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

It's pretty transparently a sham democracy when there's only 2 candidates at the prez debate but several at the respective party primary debates

Not that i think an hour exchange using responses prepared by others (palin) is enough to reveal the complete ineptitude of many candidates. The debate questions themselves are a huge part of the problem
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

jamesrage said:
A ballot doesn't tell the voter what issues the candidate stands for.Nor is it the same thing as debating other presidential candidates so that potential voters can get an idea of what issues you stand for.
Click to expand...

No but a voter guide does and all voters get them, as far as I know, before the election. So again, can these people not read? And even if they get to the ballot box and haven't done their homework, meaning they really shouldn't be voting at all, are they so daft they can't go home and research these parties for the next election?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
Fault the Libertarians for not putting a person on the ticket.
Click to expand...

Thing is you didn't fault the LP. You faulted the libertarian voter for not voting libertarian.

I note that you avoided the bit about putting up statistics to support your point. So for all you know more libertarians are voting Democrat than Republician.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Cephus said:
No but a voter guide does and all voters get them, as far as I know, before the election.
Click to expand...

And this voter guide comes from......?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

If you think our presidential debates right now are mostly a load of bull ****, just wait until every nutjob representing the extremes gets in on them.

For example, a question gets asked about tax reform:

Democratic Candidate - We need to simplify our tax code while still keeping it progressive....Clinton Rates.... Blah, blah, blah....

Republican Candidate - We need to simplify our tax code by making it flatter....Ronald Reagan.... Blah, blah,blah...

Libertarian Candidate - Gold Standard...Federal Reserve....Guns Owners....Vaccines violate personal liberty.... (wtf)

Green Candidate - Look at the Yanomami tribe....Ivory Trade....Justice...Vaccines contain toxins.... (wtf)
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

AlbqOwl said:
The thing is, if there was interest in the candidates from all the 'other' parties (i.e. not D or R) then they would make much better showing in the polls. If the grass roots really wants these people to succeed, they need to put their time, energy, creativity, and money where their mouths are, make sure there are enough signatures to get them on the ballot in all 50 states, and make sure they are visible on Fallon or Ellen or Good Morning America or Saturday Night Live or any of the other popular forums for political candidates. Get them face and name recognition, and teach them how to get a message out, and you'll see better poll percentages for them.

I do think a candidate does need 10 to 15% of the polls to be considered at all viable. And you don't want the 'also rans' to take important face time away from a good candidate who does have a chance to be viable and to win.

Having said that, the debates themselves are a recitation of memorized talking points and teach us almost nothing about the candidates other than who has the funniest one liners and delivery style and/or who is the most likable. We very seldom find anything out about them that is useful to determine who would make the best President.
Click to expand...

With more people in the pool who are serious, the talking point thing will go away.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

maquiscat said:
Thing is you didn't fault the LP. You faulted the libertarian voter for not voting libertarian.

I note that you avoided the bit about putting up statistics to support your point. So for all you know more libertarians are voting Democrat than Republician.
Click to expand...

I am going by what folks here confess - they proudly state they are libertarian but then vote republican. If you want stats

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libertarian-vote

Maybe the Libertarian Party needs to give people a reason to vote for them. They have done precious little of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom