Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 10-01-2004, 04:21 PM

Actually, gcbrowni, you're a bit wrong. You're right in that you can't invite everyone to the debates. And you're right in that no one else meets the threshhold that the Commission on Presidential Debates currently has set. Of course, the Commission on Presidential Debates was set up jointly by the two major parties, so why would they make the threshhold reasonable? In fact, it was a more reasonable threshhold in 1992, and Perot turned the election upside-down. So, for the next debate they raised the threshhold 10%. You can't tell me that that was in the interest of democracy.

Currently, a party can qualify for federal funding and still not be allowed into the debates. What does that mean? That means that even though YOUR tax dollars are helping to fund a party, you may not be ALLOWED to hear what your tax dollars are going to because the two major parties won't LET you hear.

Also, no one is debating that there should be no limits on who can debate. That would be absurd. However, the current rules are recognized by pretty much anyone with half a brain to be unfair. In Illinois it takes 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Let's assume every state has a similar number and that means to be on the ballot in all 50 states it requires a minimum of support from 1.25 million people. If a candidate has the support of over 1.25 million Americans, why shouldn't other Americans hear what this candidate has to say? Keep in mind that MOST people don't care about politics enough to go out and FIND new ideas, so it's unreasonable to assume that a new party would or could start with a significantly large amount of support. However, once a candidate is allowed to debate and reach a larger audience that can change significantly. Ross Perot did it in 1992 - and would have continued to do so had he not been locked out in 1996 - and Jesse Ventura did it in Minnesota. He was an insignificant contendor until he got into the debates.

Another thing to keep in mind is the current nature of the debates. People argue that with more than 2 people in the debates no one would get to say anything in 90 minutes, and they're right. I say, why the Hell are the so-called "debates" only 90 minutes? Even with TWO candidates no one says anything of any substance beyond nice little sound bites. All that needs to be asked is this: why are the two major parties afraid of real debates and debates with third parties? And that's what they are - you can see by the agreement that was made public this election that they are afraid of actual debates, where they get to ask each other questions, etc, and you can see by the very existence of the CPD that they are afraid of debating 3rd parties. The League of Women Voters insisted on doing what was right for democracy in the 80s by allowing third parties in the debates, and that's precisely why the CPD was created.

The people who would like more open debates are not asking for debates with no rules for qualification. They are asking for debates with fair rules. For example, if the rules was that only candidates on enough ballots to win the election could debate, there would be only 4 candidates debating this year: Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, and Cobb. Four people in a REAL debate is not an unreasonable amount, especially if the debates were a more reasonable length.

At the very least, the threshhold ought not be set at 15% to enter the debates - not when 5% gets a party federal funding.

There is literally absolutely no logical argument against the current proposals to open the debates.

EDIT: And the overall point is that the third parties CAN'T get votes or money, because they are being shut out from media and all public coverage by the two major parties. Even Bill O'Reilly is in on it - he has gone to great lengths to make sure that Michael Badnarik and the Libertarians aren't even mentioned on his show.

EDIT2: And, just to demonstrate that I was being very conservative in the number of supporters it would take to be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win, it takes 135,000 signatures to get on the CA ballot - 6 times as many as Illinois. So, it's likely more than 1.25 million.

10-01-2004, 04:21 PM	#19 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Actually, gcbrowni, you're a bit wrong. You're right in that you can't invite everyone to the debates. And you're right in that no one else meets the threshhold that the Commission on Presidential Debates currently has set. Of course, the Commission on Presidential Debates was set up jointly by the two major parties, so why would they make the threshhold reasonable? In fact, it was a more reasonable threshhold in 1992, and Perot turned the election upside-down. So, for the next debate they raised the threshhold 10%. You can't tell me that that was in the interest of democracy. Currently, a party can qualify for federal funding and still not be allowed into the debates. What does that mean? That means that even though YOUR tax dollars are helping to fund a party, you may not be ALLOWED to hear what your tax dollars are going to because the two major parties won't LET you hear. Also, no one is debating that there should be no limits on who can debate. That would be absurd. However, the current rules are recognized by pretty much anyone with half a brain to be unfair. In Illinois it takes 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Let's assume every state has a similar number and that means to be on the ballot in all 50 states it requires a minimum of support from 1.25 million people. If a candidate has the support of over 1.25 million Americans, why shouldn't other Americans hear what this candidate has to say? Keep in mind that MOST people don't care about politics enough to go out and FIND new ideas, so it's unreasonable to assume that a new party would or could start with a significantly large amount of support. However, once a candidate is allowed to debate and reach a larger audience that can change significantly. Ross Perot did it in 1992 - and would have continued to do so had he not been locked out in 1996 - and Jesse Ventura did it in Minnesota. He was an insignificant contendor until he got into the debates. Another thing to keep in mind is the current nature of the debates. People argue that with more than 2 people in the debates no one would get to say anything in 90 minutes, and they're right. I say, why the Hell are the so-called "debates" only 90 minutes? Even with TWO candidates no one says anything of any substance beyond nice little sound bites. All that needs to be asked is this: why are the two major parties afraid of real debates and debates with third parties? And that's what they are - you can see by the agreement that was made public this election that they are afraid of actual debates, where they get to ask each other questions, etc, and you can see by the very existence of the CPD that they are afraid of debating 3rd parties. The League of Women Voters insisted on doing what was right for democracy in the 80s by allowing third parties in the debates, and that's precisely why the CPD was created. The people who would like more open debates are not asking for debates with no rules for qualification. They are asking for debates with fair rules. For example, if the rules was that only candidates on enough ballots to win the election could debate, there would be only 4 candidates debating this year: Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, and Cobb. Four people in a REAL debate is not an unreasonable amount, especially if the debates were a more reasonable length. At the very least, the threshhold ought not be set at 15% to enter the debates - not when 5% gets a party federal funding. There is literally absolutely no logical argument against the current proposals to open the debates. EDIT: And the overall point is that the third parties CAN'T get votes or money, because they are being shut out from media and all public coverage by the two major parties. Even Bill O'Reilly is in on it - he has gone to great lengths to make sure that Michael Badnarik and the Libertarians aren't even mentioned on his show. EDIT2: And, just to demonstrate that I was being very conservative in the number of supporters it would take to be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win, it takes 135,000 signatures to get on the CA ballot - 6 times as many as Illinois. So, it's likely more than 1.25 million. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 10-01-2004 at 04:25 PM..