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