I'm watching an interview on CNN with the potus candidates from the Green and Libertarian parties. We can moan and gran all we want but tbo Democrats and the GOP are very likey going to own the US political system until the media starts paying other parties some attention and treat them equally.
Should the media treat the Libertarian and Green parties with the same seriousness as the GOP and he DNC? Shoud the Libertarian and Green parties be included in the debates and their primary debates covered by the meda? The obvious outcome IMHO will be a viable third and possibly fourth party. Is that even a good thing. Do we want to elect a potus with only 26% of the popular vote? Woud we need to concurrently end the electoral college and go to direct presidential vote with a runoff if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote? Are states doers ready to see Puerto Ricans, Guam residents, Samoans and Virgin Islanders have an equal vote in the presidential election as they have?
Kandahar said:No. Where do you draw the line?
The media, if their interest is truly reporting the political landscape and informing the electorate of their choices, should give "equal time" to all candidates for President. Yes..that even means the Nazi party and Rent is too Damn High party.
At the end of the day, the real complaint isn't with "media". It's with the electorate. If people would research and vote third party instead of throwing away their vote on the "lesser of two evils" or the candidate who they think will win anyway, then third party candidates would have a better showing, scare the major parties a bit, and attract the attention of the media.
Draw it at the point where the party has legitimate backing. Libertarian Party does. I'd even argue that the Green Party does.
The media should give equal airtime to all 3rd party candidates. The media has blatantly ignored 3rd party candidates and excluded them from debates in order to deliberately aid the two party monopoly.
It is amazing how many answered yes. What they are saying is that really Obama and Romney should have only had 15 minutes each in the debates - with equal time to candidates that less than 10% of voters could even name.
And why those two 3rd parties only??? Because the OP - in total contradiction - wants to exclude other 3rd parties from having a voice?
There are SIXTEEN THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT. So REALLY, the OP and majority on the forum think that Obama and Romney should only be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in the debates, with 16 other candidates "having equal time."
But why limit it to Party candidates? Why not all candidates for President in the USA? Then Obama and Romney get 18 seconds each in the debate.
I think there should be equal coverage to all parties. Give the public a real choice
Kandahar said:Who decides what is "legitimate backing"? You? Neither of those two parties you mentioned have any chance whatsoever of winning the election.
I'm watching an interview on CNN with the potus candidates from the Green and Libertarian parties. We can moan and gran all we want but tbo Democrats and the GOP are very likey going to own the US political system until the media starts paying other parties some attention and treat them equally.
Should the media treat the Libertarian and Green parties with the same seriousness as the GOP and he DNC? Shoud the Libertarian and Green parties be included in the debates and their primary debates covered by the meda? The obvious outcome IMHO will be a viable third and possibly fourth party. Is that even a good thing. Do we want to elect a potus with only 26% of the popular vote? Woud we need to concurrently end the electoral college and go to direct presidential vote with a runoff if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote? Are states doers ready to see Puerto Ricans, Guam residents, Samoans and Virgin Islanders have an equal vote in the presidential election as they have?
Not all, there should be some minimum standards met (maybe 1,000,000 registered members or something like that) or else, bob's political party that is him and his best friend bubba would be covered too.
The media couldn't possibly get through all of the parties that would spring up if something like that happened.
I think they should.
And I think there should be at least one presidential debate where all the sane alternatives are there.
Not even nessecarily because I'd support any of them.
But because I think it's healthy in a democracy for people to hear all kinds of views rather than the two party dictatorship the USA has right now.
I think it'd be a refreshing change from the Right - Left hamster wheel you guys are on.
Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb were arrested[5][6] in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 8, 2004, for an act of civil disobedience. Badnarik and Cobb were protesting their exclusion from the presidential debates of the 2004 presidential election campaign. They were arrested after crossing a police barricade in an attempt to serve an Order to Show Cause to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?