• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Would you support this change in National Debate Admission Requirements?

Change National Debate Admission Requirements?


  • Total voters
    7

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,632
Reaction score
21,899
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Face it; third party candidates have virtually no chance under our current campaign system.

Most people who intend to vote recognize that under the current system of campaigning the two major parties get all of the Debate invites and pretty much all the media coverage, leaving other contenders out in the cold. This creates a two-party system where most people end up either voting Party line or for the lesser of two evils among the two major party candidates.

Part of the problem is requiring 15% ratings in national polls to be invited to national debates, something few, if any, third party candidates have achieved.

Now we can't really open the debates up to ALL contenders for a couple of reasons. First, we don't want or need another Republican example of 16 candidates all vying for the limited time available during a debate. Second, most third party organizations are either local rather than national, or are literally fringe groups with no real appeal (Communist Party, American Nazi Party, etc.).

My suggestion:

Require debates to use a step selection process to ensure up to five (5) candidates are allowed to participate in every national debate.

Step 1: Retain the 15% polling minimum to assure a guaranteed slot.

Step 2: Add the top remaining candidates drawing less than 15% in order of largest poll number to smallest poll number.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Face it; third party candidates have virtually no chance under our current campaign system.

Most people who intend to vote recognize that under the current system of campaigning the two major parties get all of the Debate invites and pretty much all the media coverage, leaving other contenders out in the cold. This creates a two-party system where most people end up either voting Party line or for the lesser of two evils among the two major party candidates.

Part of the problem is requiring 15% ratings in national polls to be invited to national debates, something few, if any, third party candidates have achieved.

Now we can't really open the debates up to ALL contenders for a couple of reasons. First, we don't want or need another Republican example of 16 candidates all vying for the limited time available during a debate. Second, most third party organizations are either local rather than national, or are literally fringe groups with no real appeal (Communist Party, American Nazi Party, etc.).

My suggestion:

Require debates to use a step selection process to ensure up to five (5) candidates are allowed to participate in every national debate.

Step 1: Retain the 15% polling minimum to assure a guaranteed slot.

Step 2: Add the top remaining candidates drawing less than 15% in order of largest poll number to smallest poll number.

What do you think?

I don't see that more candidates and parties will change much. There were plenty of candidates albeit not so many Democrats and lots of debates for all. The voters however, managed to pick an unbelievable last three. That was the voter and much less the voting system. That is, what is so disquieting.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,632
Reaction score
21,899
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't see that more candidates and parties will change much. There were plenty of candidates albeit not so many Democrats and lots of debates for all. The voters however, managed to pick an unbelievable last three. That was the voter and much less the voting system. That is, what is so disquieting.

You are talking about the Primary campaigns for the party candidates.

I am talking about the National Election campaign period. The period where each party has chosen it's candidate and now they are competing for Presidential and other national level elections.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,764
Reaction score
20,448
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Until third parties in America, similar to third and fourth and fifth parties here in Canada and other countries, start to elect candidates in local and state governing bodies and in Congress, there's really no reason to consider them relevant in Presidential politics. Presidents, in America, are virtually useless without like minded or party faithful in both houses of Congress who can and want to promote that President's agenda.

They may actually be trying to do this, and I apologize if they are, but they clearly aren't having much impact or success if they are. You get elected, you get attention - you get attention, you get media - you get media, you get face time with the public - you get face time with the public, you grow an audience and support - you grow an audience and support, then you become relevant.
 

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Face it; third party candidates have virtually no chance under our current campaign system.

Most people who intend to vote recognize that under the current system of campaigning the two major parties get all of the Debate invites and pretty much all the media coverage, leaving other contenders out in the cold. This creates a two-party system where most people end up either voting Party line or for the lesser of two evils among the two major party candidates.

Part of the problem is requiring 15% ratings in national polls to be invited to national debates, something few, if any, third party candidates have achieved.

Now we can't really open the debates up to ALL contenders for a couple of reasons. First, we don't want or need another Republican example of 16 candidates all vying for the limited time available during a debate. Second, most third party organizations are either local rather than national, or are literally fringe groups with no real appeal (Communist Party, American Nazi Party, etc.).

My suggestion:

Require debates to use a step selection process to ensure up to five (5) candidates are allowed to participate in every national debate.

Step 1: Retain the 15% polling minimum to assure a guaranteed slot.

Step 2: Add the top remaining candidates drawing less than 15% in order of largest poll number to smallest poll number.

What do you think?

I agree, something needs to be changed. This would be an non-trivial form of help, but it's not enough. We need to fundamentally change the role that parties play in politics. Right now, they play a pretty bad role. They act to obstruct candidates that don't represent the people, and instead actively promote candidates that represent the party's donor class. As such, it's currently a pretty mitigated sense in which we have a democracy at all. There's studies even to show that we really don't, and this donor-class oligarchy pretty much rules out the day (Which is largely done with the intention of rigging the economy in their favor).

So this role that money, economics, and political parties play is pretty important, and they unquestionably act to mitigate, control, and manage a so-called democracy into something that reliably, regularly will maintain power and order of the privileged elite. You can break up some of their power through getting third party candidates --in fact, as Sanders demonstrated, it may even be possible for them to lose substantial positions of power-- but I think it should definitely be done in conjunction with ideas like Wolf-PAC (a PAC for getting money out of politics, e.g. making it illegal for corporations to spend money in elections, placing severe restrictions on campaigns, and putting in place public finances for candidates exceeding a certain vote).

There's a lot of work going forward, and it needs to be done. Shortly, I'm going to start giving $10/month to Wolf-PAC (It's not partisan, btw, they work with Republicans and Democrats, and have achieved several state ballot measures through Republican and Democratic congresses).
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You are talking about the Primary campaigns for the party candidates.

I am talking about the National Election campaign period. The period where each party has chosen it's candidate and now they are competing for Presidential and other national level elections.

Oh. Okay. I am with you that competition for the top is good. I would have to look at the consequences for the political decision making. Almost certainly it would require a second election between the two front runners like in France.
Also, it would not totally remove the weakness that the present selection of candidates has shown up.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
76,099
Reaction score
60,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
yeah, third party candidates should be included in the debates if they are above a minimal level of support. i'd rather see gerrymandering banned, though.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,589
Reaction score
37,168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
yeah, third party candidates should be included in the debates if they are above a minimal level of support. i'd rather see gerrymandering banned, though.

I'd rather see world hunger ended.

And mine'll happen first.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,020
Reaction score
16,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Face it; third party candidates have virtually no chance under our current campaign system.

Most people who intend to vote recognize that under the current system of campaigning the two major parties get all of the Debate invites and pretty much all the media coverage, leaving other contenders out in the cold. This creates a two-party system where most people end up either voting Party line or for the lesser of two evils among the two major party candidates.

Part of the problem is requiring 15% ratings in national polls to be invited to national debates, something few, if any, third party candidates have achieved.

Now we can't really open the debates up to ALL contenders for a couple of reasons. First, we don't want or need another Republican example of 16 candidates all vying for the limited time available during a debate. Second, most third party organizations are either local rather than national, or are literally fringe groups with no real appeal (Communist Party, American Nazi Party, etc.).

My suggestion:

Require debates to use a step selection process to ensure up to five (5) candidates are allowed to participate in every national debate.

Step 1: Retain the 15% polling minimum to assure a guaranteed slot.

Step 2: Add the top remaining candidates drawing less than 15% in order of largest poll number to smallest poll number.

What do you think?

I picked other. I think top 3 3rd party candidates instead of polling minimum should automatically be included in the debates and have ballot access.Since 3rd parties often get squeezed out of debates most people don't know they exist.
 
Top Bottom