• 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

haymarket said:
So you have no evidence to present. Got it loud and clear. Enjoy that beer and the side of ignorance.
Click to expand...

false... I have evidence and I have provided it before.... you simply ignored it, as is your norm.

I'm not the one living in ignorance , believing there are no rules/laws that negatively affect only 3rd parties and benefit only the 2 major parties.... that would be you and the other extreme party loyalists who hate the thought of competition.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
false... I have evidence and I have provided it before.....
Click to expand...

so then simply link to it.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

No. As the number of candidates increase, the amount of time each one can speak is reduced. There is no point to a debate if there are 31 candidates who each have 6 seconds per answer.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

There were 14 candidates for president in 2012.

This would allow only 8 1/2 minutes - including moderator time - per candidate for a TWO HOUR debate.

The claim of wanting more candidates allowed in debates sounds nice, but what it really would mean is the debates would be pointless.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

joko104 said:
No. As the number of candidates increase, the amount of time each one can speak is reduced. There is no point to a debate if there are 31 candidates who each have 6 seconds per answer.
Click to expand...

joko104 said:
There were 14 candidates for president in 2012.

This would allow only 8 1/2 minutes - including moderator time - per candidate for a TWO HOUR debate.

The claim of wanting more candidates allowed in debates sounds nice, but what it really would mean is the debates would be pointless.
Click to expand...

Why such drama???? Who said they want 31 candidates in a debate? :roll:

As it is....the "debates" are pointless already.
So again - your position is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
false... I have evidence and I have provided it before.... you simply ignored it, as is your norm.

I'm not the one living in ignorance , believing there are no rules/laws that negatively affect only 3rd parties and benefit only the 2 major parties.... that would be you and the other extreme party loyalists who hate the thought of competition.
Click to expand...

If that is true - one would think it would be very very very easy for you to simply link to it. Perhaps what you think you presented did not at all live up to the billing or its description.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
What I am saying is that the American people have shown no interest in the current crop of third parties and have shown no interest in changing the rules to benefit them.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. Third party candidates are deliberately marginalized by the establishment, Americans don't get to hear and see them. That's the reason for a need to change the rules, get these people in the open, let Americans actually hear them.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

joko104 said:
No. As the number of candidates increase, the amount of time each one can speak is reduced. There is no point to a debate if there are 31 candidates who each have 6 seconds per answer.
Click to expand...

Hold more debates, hold longer debates.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

joko104 said:
There were 14 candidates for president in 2012.

This would allow only 8 1/2 minutes - including moderator time - per candidate for a TWO HOUR debate.

The claim of wanting more candidates allowed in debates sounds nice, but what it really would mean is the debates would be pointless.
Click to expand...

The point being, all fourteen were establishment candidates.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Dragonfly said:
Why such drama???? Who said they want 31 candidates in a debate? :roll:

As it is....the "debates" are pointless already.
So again - your position is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Click to expand...

There were 14 candidates for President in 2012. Which ones then would you discriminate against if the debate goes beyond the major party candidates?

There should be a threshold of so many percentage points in a legitimate poll to be included in the debate AND on the ballot in enough states to potentially be elected. If merely being a legal candidate on the ballot assured national television time there would likely be hundreds or even thousands of independent candidates.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
The point being, all fourteen were establishment candidates.
Click to expand...

No, they were not.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

joko104 said:
There were 14 candidates for President in 2012. Which ones then would you discriminate against if the debate goes beyond the major party candidates?

There should be a threshold of so many percentage points in a legitimate poll to be included in the debate AND on the ballot in enough states to potentially be elected. If merely being a legal candidate on the ballot assured national television time there would likely be hundreds or even thousands of independent candidates.
Click to expand...

How do you figure 14???

The choices were Obama and Romney. That's it. Two people.

APTOPIX_Presidential_Debate-0bf0c-7089.jpg
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

joko104 said:
No, they were not.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed them then. Could you please list all the third party candidates that participated in the 2012 debates?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
I guess I missed them then. Could you please list all the third party candidates that participated in the 2012 debates?
Click to expand...

There were 14 candidates on ballots for US President.

This is a link to the 3rd Party Candidate's 2012 debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI

However, that debate excluded independent candidates. Obama and Romney opted not to attend.

Clearly you don't REALLY care about 3rd party candidates or you would have watched the 3rd Party Candidates Debate - and didn't. Despite what you post you're no different than anyone else.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
I guess I missed them then. Could you please list all the third party candidates that participated in the 2012 debates?
Click to expand...

There were 14 candidates on ballots for US President in the general election.

This is a link to the 3rd Party Candidate's debate. However, that debate excluded independent candidates. Obama and Romney opted not to attend.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
If that is true - one would think it would be very very very easy for you to simply link to it. Perhaps what you think you presented did not at all live up to the billing or its description.
Click to expand...

that latter is probably true.. most certainly true for people like you who do not accept evidence contrary to their personal beliefs.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
That's the whole point. Third party candidates are deliberately marginalized by the establishment, Americans don't get to hear and see them. That's the reason for a need to change the rules, get these people in the open, let Americans actually hear them.
Click to expand...

ya' nailed it...
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
It is your job to present evidence for your claims when you make an argument. Not mine.
Click to expand...

that's true enough... however,in the absence of me providing you with an education, you might want to think about putting in a little work yourself.... you were allegedly an educator, you oughta know how to research by now.

we both know nothing I say or provide will be accepted by you... that's been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, dozens and dozens of times... so it's a wasted effort on my part to provide you with information you can easily access on your own.
 
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...

Personally, having watched many debates in my time on this planet, I would say no to expanding the number of candidates during Presidential debates. If anyone has watched either or both of the Democrat and Republican primary season debates over the last number of cycles, you would clearly know that a large array of also rans and publicity whores with no possible chance of winning anything simply gums up the works and turns debates into farce where the media attempts to get the most outrageous quote possible from some idiot and then ask the real contenders to comment on the idiocy.

Until such time as a legitimate 3rd party becomes a contender to at least spoil the race, such as a Buchanan or Nader or Perot have done in the past, there should only be the two legitimate prospects on the stage that late in the game.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

joko104 said:
There were 14 candidates on ballots for US President.

This is a link to the 3rd Party Candidate's 2012 debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI

However, that debate excluded independent candidates. Obama and Romney opted not to attend.

Clearly you don't REALLY care about 3rd party candidates or you would have watched the 3rd Party Candidates Debate - and didn't. Despite what you post you're no different than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Clearly you miss the point. The establishment dismissal is the rub. And this needs to be changed. I want third party candidates debating the dinosaurs.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

CanadaJohn said:
Personally, having watched many debates in my time on this planet, I would say no to expanding the number of candidates during Presidential debates. If anyone has watched either or both of the Democrat and Republican primary season debates over the last number of cycles, you would clearly know that a large array of also rans and publicity whores with no possible chance of winning anything simply gums up the works and turns debates into farce where the media attempts to get the most outrageous quote possible from some idiot and then ask the real contenders to comment on the idiocy.

Until such time as a legitimate 3rd party becomes a contender to at least spoil the race, such as a Buchanan or Nader or Perot have done in the past, there should only be the two legitimate prospects on the stage that late in the game.
Click to expand...

it's worthy to note that neither Nader nor Buchanan were allowed to debate.... and Perot was barred from the debates in 1996

Perot, at the time of the 92 debate, was polling at 7%... on election day, he rang it at 19%
that didn't happen by magic... it happened because he got exposure.

in 2000, the CPD enacted a new rule stating a candidate must poll at 15% or above to be allowed entry into the debate.... had that rule been in effect in 92, Perot would have been disallowed then too.

you know something is fishy when the non-profit that holds a monopoly on presidential debates (CPD) is controlled exclusively by the 2 major parties.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
it's worthy to note that neither Nader nor Buchanan were allowed to debate.... and Perot was barred from the debates in 1996

Perot, at the time of the 92 debate, was polling at 7%... on election day, he rang it at 19%
that didn't happen by magic... it happened because he got exposure.

in 2000, the CPD enacted a new rule stating a candidate must poll at 15% or above to be allowed entry into the debate.... had that rule been in effect in 92, Perot would have been disallowed then too.

you know something is fishy when the non-profit that holds a monopoly on presidential debates (CPD) is controlled exclusively by the 2 major parties.
Click to expand...

That's all fair comment - but where do you propose to draw the line? Are you going to require independent polling organizations to poll for all "parties"? If not, who polls or how is public opinion determined with regard to independent parties? Perhaps an independent party is polling 20% in one state but negligibly nationally - does that count?

Here in Canada we have three main parties and a couple of regional or minor parties. In debates, the three main parties are involved and if the debate is in Quebec, as an example, the national party that operates only in Quebec is included in the debates. The Green party wasn't allowed to participate until it elected a member to parliament. So maybe that's a good way for independents in America to start the participatory process - get a party member elected to the House or Senate and then your party leader gets to participate.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

CanadaJohn said:
That's all fair comment - but where do you propose to draw the line? Are you going to require independent polling organizations to poll for all "parties"? If not, who polls or how is public opinion determined with regard to independent parties? Perhaps an independent party is polling 20% in one state but negligibly nationally - does that count?

Here in Canada we have three main parties and a couple of regional or minor parties. In debates, the three main parties are involved and if the debate is in Quebec, as an example, the national party that operates only in Quebec is included in the debates. The Green party wasn't allowed to participate until it elected a member to parliament. So maybe that's a good way for independents in America to start the participatory process - get a party member elected to the House or Senate and then your party leader gets to participate.
Click to expand...

well, i think it all needs to start with ballot access laws.
there is a balance to strike here, of course, i mean, it shouldn't be a matter of just "sign up and you're in"... but it also shouldn't be insurmountable to gain access either.

I think if a party makes it on the ballot in the majority of states, it should automatically be allowed in the debates.... there should be no further thresholds to overcome.
there's no good reason why a party can be on the ballot in the majority of states, but not be allowed to debate.. not one.

as for filtering out the outliers and extremes, well, that's where the "majority of states" thing comes in... if you can gain access in 26 states, you're probably not some wacko party.

we have independents elected in Congress.. Bernie Sanders is a notable one..... and the independent party, or even independent candidates, is still not allowed to debate if they don't exceed the thresholds put in place by the CPD (polling above 15%.. nationally)
the Commission on Presidential Debates is not a government organization.. it's a private non-profit set up and entirely controlled by the RNC and DNC.. and they hold a monopoly on "official" presidential debates.
3rd parties can set up their own debates, but as we have seen,but the mainstream media will not cover it whatsoever.... few people even know there was even a 3rd party debate that actually happened .... I suspect collusion between the major media outlets and the CPD, but that's just a theory, as far as i know

so yeah, having people elected and in office doesn't mean anything when it comes to debates... it's entirely irrelevant in our corrupted system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom