Presidential Debates

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tpahl, Jun 10, 2004.

?

What should the criteria be to be in the presidential debates?

Poll closed Jun 24, 2004.
  1. It should remain the same. 15% in 5 national polls

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  2. Lower the percentage to something closer to 5%

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  3. Any candidate who is on the ballot in any state should be allowed

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%
  4. Any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win the election should be all

    8 vote(s)
    47.1%
  5. Only the Republican and Democrat should be allowed no matter what.

    1 vote(s)
    5.9%
  1. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Currently the presidential debates require that a candidate be polling at 15% or greater in 5 national polls. This effectively shuts out any opinions other than the two major parties which often do not differ signifigantly on many major issues. Some argue that this is necessary because the people need to hear from just the candidates that have a chance of winning. Others argue that more opinions should be heard.
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    If someone can get 5% in a few key states, he can swing an election. See Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader in 2000. Let them debate.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Sorry, we don't need the presidential debates to be like the primary debates, heck we don't really need the primary debates to be like they are.

    Even the Libertarians know that they don't have a chance, though I think as a party, they speak to many Americans, who just don't know the message. The debates however, are not the way to share their message.
     
  4. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    But it is a place for the two major parties to share their views? If anything their views have been heard a hundred times a week already. Adding one or tow other candidates would not make it like the primary debates where there is often 7-8 candidates. People can keep track of 3-4 candidates quite easily and even if they are not elected, the other candidates would push certian issues that would otherwise be ignored.

    Perots pushing of a balanced budget is a prime example.

    Travis
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    There's more than one or two: http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
     
  6. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Sorry... I was refering to candidates with a mathematical chance at winning. My argument is that if they were able to get on the ballot in enough states to possibly win the election (which is another mess in and of itself in some states!) then they should be given the oppurtuntiy to speak in the debates.

    I realize that we can not give a mike to every person that declares themselves a candidate. Therefore some requirement is required to limit the number. My beef is with the requirement they have. It is set so high and in my opinion non objectively so that only the two major parties are allowed in. being on the ballot in enough states would limit the number of candidates to 3 at this point and possible 4 by the time the debates come around. That is about the same number as it would have given us in the last 20 years of elections.

    Travis
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I see where you are coming from, really I do. Yet, what threshold? Some could get 5% in a state. Now if the threshold is at least 5% in 1/2 the states, I might be agreeing with you here.
     
  8. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    I think just being on the ballot should be enough.

    The percentage in polls can be manipulated. what polls? Were all the candidates even on the polls? How were they conducted? Even amongst the major parties, they fight about whether the polls are accurate and/or bias. Imagine coming from a third party perspective where you already had tougher requirements to get on the ballots, the commision that is chosing the polls is run by only democrats and rebpulicans, and most likely they chose polls that you are not even on. Sure we may all be told it is done 'fairly' but I would rather not trust them to do so. It is in their best interest to keep others out.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    originally posted by tpahl
    Give or take 3-7 points. Given. Hey, I'm on your side. Got to have some standards, the communists and greens get on many ballots. No numbers though.

    Buck up, I want this party, if not candidate, to become viable.
     
  10. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yeah, they argue 3-7% points. That is a real problem when you are requiring 5% to be in debates.

    I am not a fan of Greens or Communists, but if they are able to get on enough states ballots to mathematically win, I certianly think they should be given a podium at the debates.

    In fact I would love to see thier ideas torn apart by a libertarian in front of a national audience! :)

    Travis
     

Share This Page