Should presidential debates be required to host third party canidates?

[white_wolf]

Do you all think it would help if presidential debates were required to host candidates from parties aside from the main two? Maybe the parties with the top 5 next members or something similar?

[AlabamaLibrul]

1. They should host all serious candidates.

See also: Larry Agran, 92 Dem primary non-contender due to his media treatment.

[Donnachaidh]

8. and who defines serious?

The msm did a hatchet job on Dennis Kucinich over an old private conversation. To hear some talk here, he's NOT serious.

[white_wolf]

12. Not serious?

He is among the best the party has to offer.

[Donnachaidh]

14. that's my idea, too -- but in light of the media hatchet job he's not considered serious by some

Just look at the vehemence thrown his way by a faction here.

So -- back to the original question -- WHO -defines- serious? The media? The parties can't, they have a bias a mile wide. WHO makes the call?

[arcane1]

21. I'd go with this for serious:

Anyone who has their name on the ballot in enough states that, if they won all of those states, they would have enough electoral votes to win the election.

[OhioChick]

2. Yes n/t

[arcane1]

3. Definitely should be done. n/t

[geardaddy]

4. They should be required to host all parties

If they're on the ballot, they should be in the debate.

[leftstreet]

34. +1

[JackRiddler]

5. Yes, but I wish they could be required to do one-on-one debates with all of the top 5 candidates.

Besides being cacaphonous trifles, the debates with more players than a soccer team are, as we have seen, opportunities for the likes of Wolf Blitzer or Dead Russert to bully the deviant and grant selective privileges to those pre-ordained as acceptable by the Moneybags and the Media.

I wish they could be forced into a round-robin, having to take on each of the other candidates with the best ballot representation in a series of one-on-one events in which several formats are incorporated, including an unmoderated free-for-all period for 20 minutes where they just have to talk straight to each other.

[white_wolf]

6. Really? Why would somone unrec this post?

Of all my controversial posts, they choose this one. Come on, people, I have like 3 posts in the last week defending socialism.

[ejpoeta]

7. all candidates should be there. when they deny access to any candidate,

they are basically deciding they aren't real candidates. this is not right. and unamerican.

[Myrina]

9. Yes

CSPAN generally shows the 'everyone else' debates which include the Socialists, the workers party, Natural Law and a couple other candidates and that's where real issues and platforms get discussed, not 3 minute infomercial snips like we get from the 'big 2'.

It would be nice to see the Big 2 have to address those same substance issues.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Only if they are running for President...

If a party has an official nominated standard bearer,that person should be invited to the debate. It would make for a crowded stage as can be seen from the DIRECTORY OF U.S. POLITICAL PARTIES. 36 parties are listed.

Imagine how long a debate would last.

But I do not favor just limiting debates to the big two.

[white_wolf]

13. Interesting list. Thanks.

A lot of crazies, Nazis,religious nuts, and arch-conservatives, but a lot of leftists too, Greens and Socialists.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Yes, there are more than two parties.

It is just that the rules are stacked against third parties in the individual states, because each state has different rules for a party to be recognized.

[TheKentuckian]

11. If a candidate is on the ballot they should be in the debates.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Have a drink. Anything you want. As long as it's Pepsi or Diet-Pepsi.

Pepsi has decided that all other drinks are not viable.

[AnOhioan]

30. if it weren't so apt, I would laugh

[Dappleganger]

17. Only if The Rent is Too Damn High man is included!

Seriously, more people want to see debates of interesting people and that dude takes the award.

[crickets]

18. Yes -nt

[Spike89]

19. Generally, they have included major 3rd party candidates

Russ Perot was given a slot, I believe John Anderson got one also. But I don't think Nader or Buchanan got on the stage in 2000. Despite what some people seem to think, I don't think Kucinich ever got a nomination and he certainly has had many opportunities to participate in primary season debates--bringing him up doesn't seem to make sense.

If we're to ever have a strong 3rd party (or a number of credible parties), it would have to come from the bottom up. The obvious problem is the two-party system currently runs the elections and decides who gets on the ballots. You really need a full slate of candidates for a party--almost all recent "3rd party" candidates were actually rogue personalities rather than people committed to the platform and ideologies of a party.

Once you get there, then you could at least say something like the Green party has registered 15% of the voters in this state or nationally. But as long as "3rd parties" have virtually no base platform, voter registration, and party structure, then no, you can't really require every one who calls themself a candidate to participate.

[AnOhioan]

20. If a candidate has party backing they should be included.

Democrat, Republican, Green, Socialist, Libertarian, etc. If they are an independent they must meet a minimum standard of support....and no, I don't know what that level would be.

[stevenleser]

22. I know some people fantasize that this would make some sort of difference but it wouldn't.

Take Ralph Nader or Kucinich for instance. If they were a serious threat, they would be able to run for the Democratic nomination and win it. We all know they cannot. And the reason they cannot has nothing to do with anything nefarious. So, if the 50-75 million who will vote in the Democratic primaries don't see Nader or Kucinich as their first choice, and the 50-75 million who will vote in the Republican primary certainly don't see either of the two as their first choice, they have no chance to win a general election.

We can speak similarly of anyone else who would run as a Green, Libertarian or any other third party. There are 100-150 million people who don't want them before they start and there is no guarantee any of the other 50-100 or so million eligible voters want them either.

That being said, I think a second series of Presidential debates SHOULD be had with the folks who win minor party nominations and they should be televised. Of course, the problem will be that, for the same reason that they cannot win, no major network or cable channel will want to carry the debate unless someone forks up the cash to pay for it. And the reason is, the viewership will be light. Which brings up another point. If the only way third party candidates can get anyone to watch them is if they ride the coattails of the two major parties, are they really serious threats to win the whole thing?

[AnOhioan]

25. You seem to forget one salient fact

That being that the two parties in power have made it incredibly difficult for other parties to gain ballot access.

The playing field is not level, the majority of the electorate has probably never had the chance to vote for anyone but a candidate with a D or an R after their name.

Here in Ohio it took a lawsuit to force the state to recognize the Greens, the Constitution Party, the Libertarians and the Socialists. Prior to that lawsuit it was Democrat or Republican, and everyone else be damned.

If ballot access laws in all the states were modified so that so-called "minor parties" had an equal shot at getting recognition then your argument might be valid.

[stevenleser]

31. What I am trying to tell you is that ballot access is irrelevant...

Again I say to you, if the 50-75 million Democrats dont want to vote for them, and the 50-75 million Republicans dont want to vote for them, where are they going to get their votes to win?

In addition to Kucinich and Nader, Ron Paul is a good example. He's really a Libertarian but because he wanted to win some elections, he ran as a Republican. Even so, he is too far from what a typical Republican voter wants to secure the Republican nomination for President. Democrats certainly dont want to vote for him. So if he ran on the Libertarian ticket and had all of the ballot access in the world and all the publicity in the world, from where does he get his votes?

For all the noise that the "we need more choices than the two major parties" crowd likes to make, the fact is that the two major parties represent enough of the right of center and left of center crowds viewpoints so that there is no room for anyone else. If that starts to change, the two parties will shift. The Democratic Party will always try to capture enough of the votes so that they can defeat the Republicans, or the left most 50% of the vote + 1. The Republicans are always going to try to do the same thing from the other side.

This is all very easy to understand. And what it means is, someone who might otherwise identify as Green ought to run for President as a Democrat. If they can convince the 50-75 million folks who will vote in the Democratic Primary to vote for them, then, in fact, they will have proven that there is a desire among the Democratic party electorate to have someone more progressive be their standard bearer. In fact, we had something like that several times when Dennis Kucinich ran for President, someone who I am sure the Greens would welcome into their party. He didn't win. He didnt come close.

That is a pretty clear message of what the Presidential chances are of someone to the left of the typical Democratic Party elected official.

[AnOhioan]

32. You bring up Ron Paul

"He wanted to win some elections....so he ran as a Republican" I would counter that he HAD to run as a Republican because they, along with the Dems control the ballot access.

Same with Kucinich....he could not have run as a Green prior to this year in Ohio. But he is a actually a bad example as he is a Democrat through and through.

My point is a Green should not have to run as a Democrat to win, nor should a Libertarian be forced to run under the Republican banner.

And you give numbers of 50-75 million for each party in power..I accept that. Maybe some of those 50-75 million would be voting for other parties if the opportunity was there. It is not, in most cases. The entire system is jury-rigged.

The electorate in this country has never been given a real choice...it has been column A or column B.

[stevenleser]

33. You almost get it. You are fighting it, but you accept enough that you should see it...

You wrote: "And you give numbers of 50-75 million for each party in power..I accept that. Maybe some of those 50-75 million would be voting for other parties if the opportunity was there."

No, they wouldnt. Last time around, Ron Paul ran and Dennis Kucinich ran. You basically had a Libertarian choice within the Republican Primary and a Green choice in the Democratic Primary (if you disagree, tell me where the daylight is between the Green platform and what Kucinich stands for). And the 50-75 million Democrats didnt want the Green and the 50-75 million on the right didnt want a Libertarian.

Your point that "someone shouldnt have to run as a..." is also meaningless if you think about it. I can call myself anything I want, as can Nader, Kucinich, Paul, or anyone else. We can call Nader a Republican, Kucinich a Libertarian and Paul a Green. Does it matter if what they stand for stays the same? Ultimately, you still have to win enough votes and enough electoral votes. You ultimately have to get the same voters to vote for you. If a Libertarian cannot win enough votes in the Republican primary to be the Republican nominee, where else would they get the votes in the general?

I keep going back to this point, you ultimately have to get the same voters to vote for you. If you are a different brand of left, you still need a huge majority of Democratic voters to vote for you if you are going to win, so you might as well run in the Democratic primary. If a Socialiist or Green or whatever else on the left cannot appeal to Democratic voters, they are finished before they started. Same deal on the right.

[stevenleser]

35. It's really simple...

You wrote: "And you give numbers of 50-75 million for each party in power..I accept that. Maybe some of those 50-75 million would be voting for other parties if the opportunity was there."
-----

No, they wouldnt. Last time around, Ron Paul ran and Dennis Kucinich ran. You basically had a Libertarian choice within the Republican Primary and a Green choice in the Democratic Primary (if you disagree, tell me where the daylight is between the Green platform and what Kucinich stands for). And the 50-75 million Democrats didnt want the Green and the 50-75 million on the right didnt want a Libertarian.

Your point that "someone shouldnt have to run as a..." is also meaningless if you think about it. I can call myself anything I want, as can Nader, Kucinich, Paul, or anyone else. We can call Nader a Republican, Kucinich a Libertarian and Paul a Green. Does it matter if what they stand for stays the same? Ultimately, you still have to win enough votes and enough electoral votes. You ultimately have to get the same voters to vote for you. If a Libertarian cannot win enough votes in the Republican primary to be the Republican nominee, where else would they get the votes in the general?

I keep going back to this point, you ultimately have to get the same voters to vote for you. If you are a different brand of left, you still need a huge majority of Democratic voters to vote for you if you are going to win, so you might as well run in the Democratic primary. If a Socialiist or Green or whatever else on the left cannot appeal to Democratic voters, they are finished before they started. Same deal on the right.

[cali]

23. no.

[ipaint]

24. Debates are a sham.

The league of women voters were right in 1988 and nothing has changed, in fact the scripted nonsense that currently passes for presidential debates is worse than ever.



October 3, 1988
LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"

WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

WASHINGTON, DC —"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on
September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and was presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.

Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.

http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7777

[AnOhioan]

27. A valid point...

until control of debates is given back to a neutral organization the entire process should be considered suspect.

But the two parties in power like the stranglehold they have engineered, it probably will not change anytime soon.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

26. NO. I don't want to listen to that tard Ron Paul.

Maybe if the 3rd party is polling at 25%...but this lets all the crazies in.

I want to hear the answers of the two likeliest winners. Not a slew of bizzaro pretenders.

[readmoreoften]

28. Yes.

[joshcryer]

29. If they can show that they have significant support, absolutely.

I'm with others here that the nutcases shouldn't have a platform.

I don't know how one might define significant, but something like, maybe, polls showing tens of millions of supporters. Say 5% of the voting population at the minimum.

[LoZoccolo]

36. No.