Should the Libertarian Candidates be included in the Presidential- VP debates

[JANFU]

Should the Libertarian Candidates be included in the Presidential- VP debates
Presently 15 % nationally in 5 polls is the requirement
Myself, i think this does a disservice to the American voter.
7.5 seems to be reasonable? And they have passed that

Third-party candidates in late push for debate stage | TheHill

Johnson and Green have surpassed one hurdle – both are routinely included in the polls that will determine who makes the stage after being left out of many polls earlier in the cycle.

But reaching 15 percent in five national surveys leading up to the debate remains a steep climb for the underfunded and little-known third-party candidates.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Hell our corrupt media has deleted them from the election process so far why let them get involved now.

 

[reinoe]

They should be allowed provided the meet certain minimum conditions: otherwise any political party could be in the debates.

 

[JANFU]

They should be allowed provided the meet certain minimum conditions: otherwise any political party could be in the debates.

Reason I mentioned 7.5
I watched the THall they had, did not agree with all, but I was impressed.

 

[MrPeanut]

I hesitatingly voted for yes. I think that the overwhelming support of the two party system by the media is horrible, but in this election it may give an unfair advantage to a third party candidate. I say this because I watched Johnson's recent town hall and noticed on twitter that the comments were overwhelmingly positive. Almost none of them had anything to do with what Johnson said, but they had decided to support him because he seemed nice and honest. The problem with this is that Johnson has not been vetted at all which makes for a dangerous potential president. Ultimately I voted yes because I want more parties to be acknowledged and active in our political system.

 

[Kal'Stang]

They should be allowed provided the meet certain minimum conditions: otherwise any political party could be in the debates.

And the problem with that is.....what again? Last I heard everyone that was a US citizen could run for POTUS/VP. I see no reason to exclude someone just because they don't have the money to advertise or get free media due to being in the spotlight like Trump. In fact that seems to me like its purposely narrowing the field in order to only include those that are rich and/or famous. What was such situations called again?....

 

[reinoe]

And the problem with that is.....what again? Last I heard everyone that was a US citizen could run for POTUS/VP. I see no reason to exclude someone just because they don't have the money to advertise or get free media due to being in the spotlight like Trump. In fact that seems to me like its purposely narrowing the field in order to only include those that are rich and/or famous. What was such situations called again?....

I don't want a debate with 50 people on stage. There has to be some cutoff and that cutoff is going to be arbitrary no matter how it gets determined.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I don't want a debate with 50 people on stage. There has to be some cutoff and that cutoff is going to be arbitrary no matter how it gets determined.

Why? Wouldn't more choices present more solutions to problems? Just because you don't want a debate with 50 people on stage doesn't mean that there shouldn't be. Or that others might not mind it at all.

We wouldn't have to be stuck with an election like we have now with Trump and Hillary. Both of which should never even be considered for the POTUS seat. Yet not only are they being considered but they are the ONLY ones that are being considered by the media. Which means they're the only ones getting the air time. And everyone else is ignored. And all because those two have money and notoriety. No other real reasons.

 

[JANFU]

They should be allowed provided the meet certain minimum conditions: otherwise any political party could be in the debates.

Who sets the min? That itself should worry you.

 

[JANFU]

Why? Wouldn't more choices present more solutions to problems? Just because you don't want a debate with 50 people on stage doesn't mean that there shouldn't be. Or that others might not mind it at all.

We wouldn't have to be stuck with an election like we have now with Trump and Hillary. Both of which should never even be considered for the POTUS seat. Yet not only are they being considered but they are the ONLY ones that are being considered by the media. Which means they're the only ones getting the air time. And everyone else is ignored. And all because those two have money and notoriety. No other real reasons.

The 2 party state you enjoy, and I am being sarcastic is a major problem.
Them or us. I was quite impressed when the Libertarian Candidate, not sure which one, on BLM, stated I had my head in the sand.
I somewhat disagreed with ridding the Govt of the dept of education. if there were standards that all students, regardless of ethnicity, of incomes in the area, in any State received a certain standard, then the Dept could be reduced.

 

[Perotista]

Should the Libertarian Candidates be included in the Presidential- VP debates
Presently 15 % nationally in 5 polls is the requirement
Myself, i think this does a disservice to the American voter.
7.5 seems to be reasonable? And they have passed that

Third-party candidates in late push for debate stage | TheHill

Unfunded is more like it. Johnson and Stein don't get tens of millions of dollars from corporations, Wall Street, lobbyist, special interests and mega big money donors. The fact that Johnson is right around 10% in the NBC/WSJ poll and 12% in the IBD/TIPP poll and Stein at 5% in each is really astounding. No money, no media coverage, no political ads, no name recognition, no nothing except their last names are not Trump and Clinton. That in itself is totally amazing.

Considering that in its long history, no Libertarian candidate has even received one percent of the total vote in any presidential election. Only the dissatisfaction with the choices the two major parties have given us is causing Stein and Johnson to reach levels neither of their party's candidates has ever done before.

I would love to see them included in one debate at least. To let the American people know there is another choice out there besides Trump and Clinton. But that being said, I have no problem with the 15% threshold. This year is very unique, never before has the two major parties offered up two candidates whose unfavorable ratings are close or above 60%. No one likes Trump and Clinton outside of their avid supporters. The majority of Americans don't want either to be their next president. But it is what it is.

The American people do have other options, if they fail to utilize the other options the onus is on them. But it would be nice to be able to let the American people know there are other options. The majority don't know that.

Perhaps a 10% threshold for the first debate, 20% for the second and 30% for the third. But that will never happen either. The two major parties have a monopoly on our political system and they aren't going to do anything to break that up. I wouldn't be a bit surprise if Johnson did make the 15% threshold, that the so called bipartisan debate committee would raise the bar to 20% or 25%, anything to keep him out of the debates.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There has to be some reasonable limit on who qualifies or the debates would be a meaningless crowded mess allowing no time for any real debate. I would prefer a lower standard for the first two, say just being on the ballot in 25 states, that gets progressively tighter based on national polling after the initial two debates.

2016 Presidential Candidates (Presidency 2016)

 

[JANFU]

Unfunded is more like it. Johnson and Stein don't get tens of millions of dollars from corporations, Wall Street, lobbyist, special interests and mega big money donors. The fact that Johnson is right around 10% in the NBC/WSJ poll and 12% in the IBD/TIPP poll and Stein at 5% in each is really astounding. No money, no media coverage, no political ads, no name recognition, no nothing except their last names are not Trump and Clinton. That in itself is totally amazing.

Considering that in its long history, no Libertarian candidate has even received one percent of the total vote in any presidential election. Only the dissatisfaction with the choices the two major parties have given us is causing Stein and Johnson to reach levels neither of their party's candidates has ever done before.

I would love to see them included in one debate at least. To let the American people know there is another choice out there besides Trump and Clinton. But that being said, I have no problem with the 15% threshold. This year is very unique, never before has the two major parties offered up two candidates whose unfavorable ratings are close or above 60%. No one likes Trump and Clinton outside of their avid supporters. The majority of Americans don't want either to be their next president. But it is what it is.

The American people do have other options, if they fail to utilize the other options the onus is on them. But it would be nice to be able to let the American people know there are other options. The majority don't know that.

Perhaps a 10% threshold for the first debate, 20% for the second and 30% for the third. But that will never happen either. The two major parties have a monopoly on our political system and they aren't going to do anything to break that up. I wouldn't be a bit surprise if Johnson did make the 15% threshold, that the so called bipartisan debate committee would raise the bar to 20% or 25%, anything to keep him out of the debates.

The 15 % is to high. The key to breaking the 2 Party State is having other choices available.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I'm on the fence. I agree that there needs to be a form of regulation (I think it should be 5%, personally), but I also think the Duopoly is too hard on the third-parties. A lot of developed countries in Europe function just fine with a multitude of major political parties, and all of them combined just barely surpass the U.S. in terms of geographical size and population. So there is a disconnect here that can be attributed to spin ops launched by the Duopoly over the past several decades (and well beyond that). It also means U.S. Citizens have less say in their political system than those in Europe on average based on raw data alone.

 

[Perotista]

The 15 % is to high. The key to breaking the 2 Party State is having other choices available.

I understand that. But as long as the money flows from corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests and mega money donors in the tens of and even hundreds of millions of dollars to only the Republicans and Democrats, that is not going to happen. Look at 2012, Romney spent over a billion dollars, Obama spent over a billion dollars and in third place was Gary Johnson at a bit less than 3 million. Being out spent two billion plus to three million is one reason why no viable third party will rise.

Besides Republicans and Democrats write our elections laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. They have a monopoly and they are bound to keep it that way. This year Hillary Clinton has already said she will spend two billion plus on her election bid. Trump hasn't said. But it is estimated he will come close to Hillary. At least it was estimated before he hit the skids. That's 4 billion dollars one way or the other. How does one compete with that?

 

[Crovax]

I hesitatingly voted for yes. I think that the overwhelming support of the two party system by the media is horrible, but in this election it may give an unfair advantage to a third party candidate. I say this because I watched Johnson's recent town hall and noticed on twitter that the comments were overwhelmingly positive. Almost none of them had anything to do with what Johnson said, but they had decided to support him because he seemed nice and honest. The problem with this is that Johnson has not been vetted at all which makes for a dangerous potential president. Ultimately I voted yes because I want more parties to be acknowledged and active in our political system.

Not been vetted? He's a 2 term governor and has run the the GOP primaries before

 

[JANFU]

I understand that. But as long as the money flows from corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests and mega money donors in the tens of and even hundreds of millions of dollars to only the Republicans and Democrats, that is not going to happen. Look at 2012, Romney spent over a billion dollars, Obama spent over a billion dollars and in third place was Gary Johnson at a bit less than 3 million. Being out spent two billion plus to three million is one reason why no viable third party will rise.

Besides Republicans and Democrats write our elections laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. They have a monopoly and they are bound to keep it that way. This year Hillary Clinton has already said she will spend two billion plus on her election bid. Trump hasn't said. But it is estimated he will come close to Hillary. At least it was estimated before he hit the skids. That's 4 billion dollars one way or the other. How does one compete with that?

the SCOTUS ruling gave free rein to the corruption in your political donations. Most Democracies have a limit. I only checked a tad and it was extreme what donation maxs were. That and giving Corps 1 A rights. WTF were they thinking?

 

[Helix]

yeah, libertarians should be included in presidential and VP debates. the duopoly candidates aren't such delicate little snowflakes that they can't handle another point of view.

 

[Perotista]

There has to be some reasonable limit on who qualifies or the debates would be a meaningless crowded mess allowing no time for any real debate. I would prefer a lower standard for the first two, say just being on the ballot in 25 states, that gets progressively tighter based on national polling after the initial two debates.

2016 Presidential Candidates (Presidency 2016)

I agree, how about instead of 25 states, any candidate who can reach 270 electoral votes. It takes 270 to win and any candidate or party not on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 has no chance of winning.

I would make 270 the threshold for the first debate, 340 for the second and 400 for the third. I would include a caveat that any candidate or party drawing 25% of the popular vote would be included regardless of that parties total achievable electoral vote count.

You know we're dreaming.

 

[Perotista]

the SCOTUS ruling gave free rein to the corruption in your political donations. Most Democracies have a limit. I only checked a tad and it was extreme what donation maxs were. That and giving Corps 1 A rights. WTF were they thinking?

Basically, money is speech. I don't have the foggiest idea what caused the SCOTUS to come up with that idea. here:

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php

 

[JANFU]

Basically, money is speech. I don't have the foggiest idea what caused the SCOTUS to come up with that idea. here:

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php

I am off to bed shortly. Will read the link later. Many democracies have strict limits on political donations.
Quite a number of years ago, Senators who retired/ lost- did not run again had free access to their funds raised. Utter corruption.

 

[Sherman123]

Should the Libertarian Candidates be included in the Presidential- VP debates
Presently 15 % nationally in 5 polls is the requirement
Myself, i think this does a disservice to the American voter.
7.5 seems to be reasonable? And they have passed that

Third-party candidates in late push for debate stage | TheHill

Yes. I'm a Republican voting for Clinton. I want them in because it will splinter the Trump vote.

 

[MrPeanut]

Not been vetted? He's a 2 term governor and has run the the GOP primaries before

Which GOP primaries? He went libertarian in 2012 after a short stint on the GOP ticket. He has received nowhere near the amount of attention Clinton or Trump has. It makes him a relative unknown to this race.

 

[Crovax]

Which GOP primaries? He went libertarian in 2012 after a short stint on the GOP ticket. He has received nowhere near the amount of attention Clinton or Trump has. It makes him a relative unknown to this race.

Clinton and Trump have been in the public eye for decades he will always be a relative unknown compared to them

 

[Perotista]

I am off to bed shortly. Will read the link later. Many democracies have strict limits on political donations.
Quite a number of years ago, Senators who retired/ lost- did not run again had free access to their funds raised. Utter corruption.

It sure has become that way.