Presidential Debates

[tpahl]

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

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

 

[Annie]

Adding one or tow other candidates would not make it like the primary debates where there is often 7-8 candidates.

There's more than one or two: http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
There's more than one or two: http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm

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

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

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.

 

[Annie]

originally posted by tpahl

Even amongst the major parties, they fight about whether the polls are accurate and/or bias.

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.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

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

 

[Annie]

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.

and that's the reason for the threshold. You shot down your own argument. Libertarians actually have a shot in the coming years.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

and that's the reason for the threshold. You shot down your own argument. Libertarians actually have a shot in the coming years.

I am not sure I follow... How am I shooting down my own argument by saying that the rule should apply to greens and communists as well? I do not care WHO is on the debates so long as they are at least able to get on the ballot in enough states to win the election. That number has never been more than 4 and I doubt it ever will.

Travis

 

[Annie]

Doesn't help to have more than 2-4 debaters. Greens and communists are marginal, I hope Libertarians get it together one day soon to be a viable 3rd party. That's what I meant.

Until then, expect the 15% threshold to stay.

 

[menewa]

More parties definitely need to be included in the pres debates. The debate between Gore and Bush in 2000 that I saw was a joke. It was more like a series of agreements rather than a debate.
However, before any of the alternate parties can make it to the big time, they need to first start winning some state and federal legislative seats. It's like a lot of them are just trying to jump all the way to the top of the ladder, which is why so many of them fall flat.

 

[Annie]

However, before any of the alternate parties can make it to the big time, they need to first start winning some state and federal legislative seats. It's like a lot of them are just trying to jump all the way to the top of the ladder, which is why so many of them fall flat.

originally posted by menewa


Weird thing about our system or maybe our media. Easier to be noticed at the national level. As someone who agrees with at least some of the libertarian ideas: low taxes, punitive drug laws, gun control, etc., I must say that they have hard time getting a hearing.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by menewa
However, before any of the alternate parties can make it to the big time, they need to first start winning some state and federal legislative seats. It's like a lot of them are just trying to jump all the way to the top of the ladder, which is why so many of them fall flat.

The Libertarian Party has been running candidates at every level of government for over 30 years now. They currently have more people elected to office than all other third parties combined. (I think the number is somewhere around 700) They have had state legislative seats (but I think right now they do not). They have had mayor positions for fairly decent sized towns. They have even held the majority in a city council before.

But to make the jump from the local races to the ones you are federal legislative and even state legislative seats is often very difficult. When was the last time you saw a debate for even your Federal house race? The Presidential ticket is different in that there are debates and the people actually watch them. The presidential candidates for ALL parties set the tone and policy of their respective parties. They are out there not just to be elected to president but to send their parties message.

Travis

 

[dilloduck]

Sounds like you wanna get some free media coverage. Good luck!
As of now, it takes supporters and money . Even a little media control might help but the libs have that prretty much locked up and they CERTAINLY don't a third party candidate. I would like to see a viable 3rd party but it's not gonna come for free.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Sounds like you wanna get some free media coverage. Good luck!

No. If the Libertarian party was after free media coverage, they would take the millions of dollars of political welfare that they have qualified for in the past and again this year. Instead they turn it down because...

1. it is morally wrong to take other peoples money to be put to use for ones on speech
2. we beleive in small government (as opposed to just preaching it as some political parties do)
3. Government money always comes with strings.


The Democrats and Republicans however are going to have tax payer funded conventions again this year. Afterwards they are going to take 75 million tax payer dollars each and give it to their candidates for 'free' publicity'.

As of now, it takes supporters and money . Even a little media control might help but the libs have that prretty much locked up and they CERTAINLY don't a third party candidate. I would like to see a viable 3rd party but it's not gonna come for free.

No it is not. And unfortunatly it costs the libertarians much more time, energy, and money to even get on the ballot in all 50 states. did you know that the requirement for the republicans and democrats to get on the ballot are generally require much LESS signatures, despite being the LARGER parties. I think after spending the money to be on the ballot in all 50 states as the Libertarian party has done the past 3 (at least) presidential elections, they should given a chance to speak to the american people at the debates. When polled most people want to hear more opinions.

Travis

 

[dilloduck]

I admire your tenacity to your ideals but if ya wanna play, ya gotta pay

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I admire your tenacity to your ideals but if ya wanna play, ya gotta pay

Unless you are a democrat or republican, in which case you pay less to be on the ballots and take more money from the taxpayer.

Travis