• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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?"
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

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?"


It isn't a actual presidential debate unless all the candidates are present and debating.This thing we have now is farce.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

It isn't a actual presidential debate unless all the candidates are present and debating.This thing we have now is farce.

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

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?"

I think as long as they stick to the "must have at least 15% in the polling" rule, it's a good idea.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

The problem lies in that, unless I am mistaken, all debates are run by private organizations, thus there is no say by the public, save that which might affect their ratings or other measures of success. Technically they can invite a major candidate and a third party one and leave the other major candidate out in the cold.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

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?

Source for these "facts" ????
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

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?"

The risk is this could change the paradigm. I'm okay with that provided we do some otter changes too. I don't think it would be a good thing if our new normal becomes a president who most people voted against due to the vote being split 3 or more ways. Only if we eliminate the electoral college and start having runoff elections would I support changing the rules for debates.

Would I can support now is having a debate between the Libertarian and Green Party candidates just to educate.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Source for these "facts" ????

what facts are those?

If by "facts" you mean my statement that voters have little interest in third parties - those facts would be the election results.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

what facts are those?

If by "facts" you mean my statement that voters have little interest in third parties - those facts would be the election results.

Are you really and honestly that blind to reality???

If I handed you a cup of coke and a cup of pepsi, and told you to chose just one, would I be safe in assuming you wouldn't prefer sprite, coffee, beer, or water?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

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?

That is, indeed, part of the problem. It seems that about half of the voters will vote a "straight ticket" making the primary become the important race. The problem with third party candidates is that they stand very, very little chance of winning in a general election. Many "regular" voters cannot even name their three congress critters, much less what committees they are on, what bills they have introduced, sponsored or voted for.

http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/pdfs/straightticket.pdf
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

That is, indeed, part of the problem. It seems that about half of the voters will vote a "straight ticket" making the primary become the important race. The problem with third party candidates is that they stand very, very little chance of winning in a general election. Many "regular" voters cannot even name their three congress critters, much less what committees they are on, what bills they have introduced, sponsored or voted for.

http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/pdfs/straightticket.pdf

You're missing the point.

People think they only have two choices because the system has been rigged to only offer them two choices.

If you only have "feces A" and "feces B" to chose from, what difference does it make which pile of feces you chose?

The two parties have rigged it so that any other option isn't available.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

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?"

Indeed. There's a thread on this in the breaking news non MSM forum. And there's a group working toward this end now.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

You're missing the point.

People think they only have two choices because the system has been rigged to only offer them two choices.

If you only have "feces A" and "feces B" to chose from, what difference does it make which pile of feces you chose?

The two parties have rigged it so that any other option isn't available.

That may be true but giving "fringe" candidates a few hours of free airtime will never fix that system. I doubt that many point to a debate answer as the reason for selecting a candidate. The simple truth is that third party candidates tend subtract votes from one major party more than the other, making the decision to vote for a long odds, third party candidate simply give one of the favorites an advantage over the other.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Are you really and honestly that blind to reality???

If I handed you a cup of coke and a cup of pepsi, and told you to chose just one, would I be safe in assuming you wouldn't prefer sprite, coffee, beer, or water?

Sorry - that makes no sense to me.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

That is, indeed, part of the problem. It seems that about half of the voters will vote a "straight ticket" making the primary become the important race. The problem with third party candidates is that they stand very, very little chance of winning in a general election. Many "regular" voters cannot even name their three congress critters, much less what committees they are on, what bills they have introduced, sponsored or voted for.

http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/pdfs/straightticket.pdf

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

That may be true but giving "fringe" candidates a few hours of free airtime will never fix that system. I doubt that many point to a debate answer as the reason for selecting a candidate. The simple truth is that third party candidates tend subtract votes from one major party more than the other, making the decision to vote for a long odds, third party candidate simply give one of the favorites an advantage over the other.

Sorry - that makes no sense to me.

You are both part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You'd both prefer to limit the options to two pieces of trash than open things up to more competition and possibly hope for some change.

Don't worry, you're not alone. You both deserve the government you get.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

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?"

I'm fine with making it a bit easier for one additional candidate to participate in the debates, with it becoming more difficult to meet the requirement as the election cycle moves forward. From the other thread discussing the news story:

I would be fine with something like this, with a slight tweak, for the general election.

For the first debate, the requirement would be as they say. Ballot access in states totalling 270 electoral college votes. If more than one candidate meets that requirement, the one with the most signatures becomes the 3rd wheel in the debate.

For the second debate, an additional requirement would be needed. The individual would need to be polling at least at 5% in 3 nationally recognized polls (create a list of applicable polls for this purpose).

For the third and any subsequent debates, an additional requirement would be needed. The individual would need ot be polling at least at 10% in 3 nationally recognized poll.

Here's my logic...

First, I agree with them that they're looking at just 3. More than that and it muddies the water of the debate far too much and does an ultimate disservice to the voters.

Second, the first debate should have a low threshold to get into. This is essentially a third party candidates "coming out" party. Their first big chance to hit a national audience. To expect them to be polling even mildly well prior to this point is likely unreasonable.

Third, after the first debate...IF the candidate is even MILDLY viable...he should begin to poll at least a noticable level given the additional exposure from the first debate. If by the second debate the candidate still can't manage 5% support in the polls, or by the third debate he can't manage 10% support, then to me that's a clear indication that the candidate has little realistic chance to win the Presidency and is not catching hold with the American Public. As such, I believe it's in the Publics best interest for a candidate that so few are interested in, and has such a implausible chance of winning, to be taking up valuable air time that could be spent allowing the Public to better learn about the two primary candidates.

Essentially

1st debate - 270 electoral votes of ballot access (most signatures win out if there are multiple people who meet this)
2nd debate - 270 electoral votes of ballot access AND 5% in polls (highest in polls wins out for this)
3rd+ debate - 270 electoral votes of ballot access AND 10% in polls (highest in polls wins out for this)
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

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.

That is not entirely so. Most third party candidates realize that they will never win yet still hope to steer one of the major party's candidates to share their views on at least some issues. We now hear of many republicants being referred to as TP supporters or as RINOS which does have an impact on policy decisions even though they still appear as republicants on the ballot.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

You are both part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You'd both prefer to limit the options to two pieces of trash than open things up to more competition and possibly hope for some change.

Don't worry, you're not alone. You both deserve the government you get.

The door is already open. Your problem is not me or anyone else - its that few voters are willing to walk through that open door.

Look at all the folks here who pretend to be LIBERTARIAN but vote REPUBLICAN every election.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

You are both part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You'd both prefer to limit the options to two pieces of trash than open things up to more competition and possibly hope for some change.

Don't worry, you're not alone. You both deserve the government you get.

See my post #18. One can still influence policy without personally winning the election. Further opening the debates to more folks is a good idea even if the additional candidates will don't win.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Are you really and honestly that blind to reality???

If I handed you a cup of coke and a cup of pepsi, and told you to chose just one, would I be safe in assuming you wouldn't prefer sprite, coffee, beer, or water?

Sprite, Coffee, Beer, and Water are all extremely popular beverages that sell large amounts within the US....indeed, it's very likely that more coffee or beer (Since you label those broadly) sell more in a year than coke.

It's laughable to compare ANY third party to "sprite", or "dr. pepper" for instance, in a "Coke/Pepsi" description because it's attempting to present a 3rd party as an extremely well known, liked, and enjoyed entity all on it's own. It's not.

It'd be more like saying you are handed a cup of coke and pepsi, and told you to choose one, that I'd be safe in assuming you wouldn't prefer RC Cola or Big Cola.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

It's always been my position that a series of debates ought to be mandatory. Every single candidate on the ballot (it can be limited to those with a minimum popularity) would be required to get on stage at least twice during the election cycle and debate the rest. No softball questions. No scripted answers. Have one debate on domestic policy and one on foreign policy. Have one for vice presidential candidates. Anyone who doesn't show up gets booted off the ballot.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

You are both part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You'd both prefer to limit the options to two pieces of trash than open things up to more competition and possibly hope for some change.

Don't worry, you're not alone. You both deserve the government you get.

But in reality, all you're doing is advocating more piles of trash. Third party candidates aren't any better, just crazier.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

But in reality, all you're doing is advocating more piles of trash. Third party candidates aren't any better, just crazier.

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

Absolutely, it seems to me that the mainstream media determines who the candidates are, along with wealth. The system needs to change.
 
Back
Top Bottom