Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Scipio · 08-12-2004, 09:37 PM

What's wrong with the status quo? Over the last decade or more, competitive third party candidates have gotten debate time. Non-competitive (or non-impactful) ones have not.

A few other thoughts:

Though it varies from state to state, here in Arkansas there are usually 10 or so candidates on the presidential ballot. How do you decide which ones get to debate? Surely not all of them.

The general public doesn't really care what a candidate who is unlikely to get more than 1% of the vote thinks.

Minor candidates who get practically no votes are hardly candidates at all, but are rather glorified activists, or glorified write-in "contenders."

If Bush and Kerry decide to debate EACHOTHER, they might wish to exclude other candidates and focus on the "serious" competition. Surely they have a right to do that.

A fly in the ointment: suppose the debate is publicly funded, and these loser candidates are receiving public funds. Shouldn't they get equal time, or something?

So, I vote for the status quo, even though I think the principle of a third party is a great idea, people have to support it because they want its ideas, not because a 3, or a more than 2 party system is inherently better than what we have now.

08-12-2004, 09:37 PM	#27 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	What's wrong with the status quo? Over the last decade or more, competitive third party candidates have gotten debate time. Non-competitive (or non-impactful) ones have not. A few other thoughts: Though it varies from state to state, here in Arkansas there are usually 10 or so candidates on the presidential ballot. How do you decide which ones get to debate? Surely not all of them. The general public doesn't really care what a candidate who is unlikely to get more than 1% of the vote thinks. Minor candidates who get practically no votes are hardly candidates at all, but are rather glorified activists, or glorified write-in "contenders." If Bush and Kerry decide to debate EACHOTHER, they might wish to exclude other candidates and focus on the "serious" competition. Surely they have a right to do that. A fly in the ointment: suppose the debate is publicly funded, and these loser candidates are receiving public funds. Shouldn't they get equal time, or something? So, I vote for the status quo, even though I think the principle of a third party is a great idea, people have to support it because they want its ideas, not because a 3, or a more than 2 party system is inherently better than what we have now. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."