Bentley Little

Anyone else here hate the fact that the debates legally forbid any other candidates from other than the two opprosive major parties to join?

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

Bill O'Rights

Absofreakinlutely!!!

Why are the Democrats, and the Republicans, so afraid to debate a Libertarian? Huh? I think I know.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

pan6467

I believe it is freedom of speech and that every person who is on the ballot in all 50 states (or a gubenatorial candidate on the entire state ballot) should be allowed time on the debates.

I also believe they are entitled to the same equal time issues in the media.

To deny them those rights is to go against the Constitutionality of the race and the belief "anyone can run for President/Governor"

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

onetime2

I think anyone on the ballot in any state should be allowed. They are, after all, running for President.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

True if the debate is just held in that state and perhaps the media could give that candidate equal time before or after as a type of rebuttal.

Nationally, though, you are taking away time from the people who worked hardest (true that's a debateable statement) to get on all 50 ballots (I think most states just require so many signatures before the deadline... except the GOP and DEMS who are given passes which I disagree with.).

I think to go by some percentile of the vote or whatever the formula needs to be abolished because it does only favor the big 2 and in only those 2 being there it inhibits another party's growth.

The great thing about Perot was he started a grassroots party with his own money, unfortunately it is slowly dying because of lack of recognition and availability to and interest of the press.

That's another downside to this partisan hate mongering. If the focus stays on the 2 big parties hating each other and the "he said, she said" game there's no room or time to focus on other groups that might actually make more sense and erode one of the big 2's base.

The only reason Nader gets anything is because of his name and past stances get instant recognition.

In all honesty had it not been for this board I would never have known the LP's candidate's name even mainly because there is no press coverage of the LP. AND THAT IS A PATHETIC THING FOR THE PRESS TO ALLOW HAPPEN.

The press should set a similar amount of time for the LP's convention as they do the big 2. Let the voters, decide not the press who gets coverage.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

onetime2

The problem I have with the approach of being on all state ballots pertains to the pieces of your above response. The first is that the two (or three) major party candidates who make it on the ballot of all 50 states already get their messages out on a pretty national level. So, they really need less time to present them and questions could be geared to addressing the specific issues which presumably all candidates will have a plan for. By having multiple debaters this may force the candidates to discuss their own plans more and rail on opponents' plans less.

The second is that the lesser known candidates never get any attention and their ideas take a loooong time to get recognition (as you pointed out). This would give them an opportunity to build some support and provide options to voters.

One of the biggest issues I have about our society is that we want choices in everything EXCEPT politics. We have this need to be able to choose from a thousand different electronic products with slightly different options. Our cars need to come from a dozen manufacturers, be available in 10 different colors/styles and offer several different option packages. Travel arrangements need to run the gamut from sub compact to luxury rental cars, general boarding to business, to business first, to first class plane tickets, hotels need smoking and non-smoking rooms, king or double beds, have gyms, pools, car service, concierge, etc, etc, etc. And yet our voters are perfectly happy supporting a non-responsive two party system that forces you to choose between only two candidates that often have a hell of a lot more in common than they have differences.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

I'd love to see every candidate who qualifies for a state ballot be allowed to any debate.
lesser candidates get attention for their party and bring up issues that the big two have an unspoken agreement not to discuss fully.
It will at the very least help to get the true opinion of the big candidates.

matteo101

I agree they definetly should be if they are on the balot. They have to give there reasoning, and there opinions, just like everyone else. Put em in, see what they do.

Does anyone know when the debates are??

pan6467

The problem with putting EVERYONE that is on a ballot somewhere for President is you can get some real kooks out there that take up the time for the people (LP, Nader, ETC) that could truly ude the time.

Would you want to see 150 people on an hour or 2 hour debate? There has to be some cut off, in order for the true candidates who do have a message and who can win over voters a chance.

Does anyone really want to give LaRouche airtime in a debate? or the Nazi party, the Communist party, the Socialist Party, the Aryan Party, and so on?

You'd have a lot of hateful people up there and chances are the big 2 and LP and Nader wouldn't waste their time as debates are voluntary anyway. Then the press wouldn't cover and their voices wouldn't be heard anyway.

Look at what Cali. just went through you had a porn actress, Gary Coleman and some 150 others running it would have been a circus and laughable to have them try to debate each other.

By giving debate tiime to every single person that is running for president would encourage kooks to get on their state's ballot just for air time.

I understand what you are saying but you have to have a cut off or the debaters would just have their points lost and it would be nothing more than a sitcom. There has to be attrition.

There is a reason LP's are on the ballot in every state, they have a stance that has attracted people.

To me a debate should consist of people who are only on all 50 ballots because those are the only people that even stand a chance of winning. It would get out the sides that truly had any support or following.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

lloydo

I feel that in order to qualify for the Presidential Debates, you should merely have to be on enough state ballots to win the electoral college if they won every state they were qualified to run in. The debates as organized now are a joke controlled by both parties with agreements to limit what is actually discussed.

Open Debates has some very good information that some people may not be aware of.

opendebates.org

SecretMethod70

ABSOLUTELY!

And I like the idea lloydo posted...I think that could work, and be fair as well.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Stompy

I'm still not sure of the difference between Democrats and Libertarian/Green parties.

Aside from all the corporate money flowing into them, I thought the Democrats were all for basic rights and freedoms? From reading the Libertarian and Green party stances, it sounds almost identical to being a Democrat.

The only difference to me is in the person running.

What makes someone Democrat/Libertarian/Green party?

__________________
I love lamp.

djtestudo

Democrats tend to believe in a larger government that spends money on people, while Libertarians tend to believe in a smaller government with less of that.

I like to think that a simple way to describe the Libertarians is that they want less government intervention period, so they have a Republican fiscal policy (generally smaller government and lower taxes) and a mix of Republican and Democrat social policy (decriminalizing abortion and drugs, right to bear arms, etc.)

I don't know much about the Green party, so I won't try to discuss them. If I'm wrong about the Libertarian issues, please help me correct myself with that as well

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

BigGov

You're pretty close dj.

http://www.lp.org - the website for the Libertarian party. Lots of information there if you'd like to learn more.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

Stompy

Hm, then why does Badnarik want abortions to be illegal? (http://issues2000.org/Michael_Badnarik.htm)

__________________
I love lamp.

ARTelevision

This thread was intended as a discussion of Presidential Debates.

Back to that.

I think only major players should be granted this platform. As to what defines a major player, personally I'm quite satisfied with a two-party system. I know some are not. It behooves those who are not to broker power until a viable third or fourth or fifth party can exist. Currently, we are very far from that point.

__________________
create evolution

hammer4all

There is a big difference:

http://www.therealdifference.com/issues2.html

Stompy

Sorry, ART, just trying to clarify the differences real quick

So basically the Green Party and Libertarian are the same?

I found more on Badnarik (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Michael_Badnarik). Says he personally opposes abortion, so isn't that against Libertarian? (Kinda confused)

__________________
I love lamp.

BigGov

Not quite.

Libertarian's are Green's are kind of similar. Economically is where there's the most difference.

As for abortion, Badnarik is personally against it, but he feels it should be decided at the state (not federal) level.

Overall in general, yes, the Libertarian party is for abortion. The debate is when life begins and whether or not you're killing the fetus.

I'm not going to answer any more in here about the LP, if you have more questions, just PM any of the libertarians/greens on the board or make a new post please

Back to the topic:

What is a major player though and how do you define one?

The problem I have with people being shut out is actually being in Minnesota visiting family when Ventura won the Gubernatorial election. No one really thought of Ventura as a major player, and no one really treated him as such. The reason he won was because the people of Minnesota were just frustrated with the Democratic and Republican candidates. He wasn't the greatest Governer in the world and it could be said that the Democrat or Republican could have done better. If people had heard more of Ventura's message they might have voted differently, so basically because Ventura wasn't heard, he might have won the election. (Sorry if that made little sense, it's 2:38 am and I'm a little tired.)

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

Bentley Little

I have seen some insightful comments in here and that was what I was hoping for.

I read that some of you feel that if we allowed everyone on the ballots, we would definitely get a lot of kooks. True. Very true. And therefore we should limit the methods that one can get onto the debate platforms. Like being on all 50 states ballots officially. I think I believe in this in some form or another but on the other hand, my true ideal Libertarian self says, let all of those who want to speak, speak.

My reasons are as follows. Let those who want to be heard be heard. Obviously we say that in the CA elections. But we saw after a while that those who were total freaks have less and less coverage because most sane people decided not to listen anymore, thus giving the choice to the people. Besides, what if (hypothetically) the two major parties have been keeping down "the so-called kooks" (by no means and I a "kook" supporter LOL) because they really do have a message that would appeal to the people and therefore hurt the major parties?) Now I know this to be untrue, but what if it were? We are a democracy, meaning choice of the people. But I do also feel that in order to actually get debate time, we should have some sort of officiality to it. Like let everyone speak and then as some of you have suggested, let those people who have a backing by the people get on all 50 states ballots.

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

Dwayne

I hate how we are a two party government. I would like to see at least 3 parties if not more. It would be nice to have more than one liberal party and more than one conservitive party and have moderate parties. This way if you hate two candidates then you have many more to choose from to vote for and still have your vote realy mean something.

phyzix525

someone wanted dates:

First presidential debate:
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
Thursday, September 30

Vice presidential debate:
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
Tuesday, October 5

Second presidential debate:
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, MO
Friday, October 8

Third presidential debate:
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Wednesday, October 13

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

mml

I personally favor a two party system, but I am not opposed to other parties, I just think it is important that any third party candidate be a viable candidate to participate in debates. It is an extremely difficult process to get on the ballot in all 50 states, particularly when the two biggies control the process, so I like the idea that the individual must be on the ballot in enough states to potentially win the electoral college. Or, if the person is polling a minimum of 25% if the popular vote.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

Sparhawk

Get a viable third party candidate, and I'll listen to what he has to say. I like consumer advocates and computer programmers, but do I think they have the experience to be president? No. I mean, we called Bush inexperienced when he was the Governor of the third biggest state in the country for 6 years, what does that say about Nader and Badnarik? I mean, at least a hypothetical Ventura candidacy has credibility, with 4 years governing a large midwestern state (as bad a job as he might have done at it, but still, credible IMO).

You need more than good ideas to be up on that stage, and the vast majority of Americans agree.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

jb2000

Simple fact is, without one of the major parties becoming a party of reform, willing to support initiatives to improve plurality and representation, such reform will never happen.

I personally support pluralism. I am a Democrat, and disagree with the much of the economic side of the Libertarian Platform (I totally agree with most of the social side of it). But the fact that nationally and consistantly 2-3% of Americans vote Libertarian and they have 0% representation in the government is very distressing.

Opponents may scream for the need to protect against 'dangerous fringe elements'. If they are so fringe, then what danger could they possess, and if they are widely supported then who is it they are really endangering?

I support a parliamentary style reform of the US House, to allow national party representation proportional to national polling. This nation's politics is not as divided geographically as is by ideas and positions in today's age. Our representative boundaries should therefore reflect more ideology and less geography.

I recognize that if such a system is enacted, it might cost Dems some seats. As a Democrat I can accept that.

The Democratic Party is the one most likely to be willing to enact positive pluralism reforms in government, but it will take more people in the party realizing the need for them. At least the Party has already positioned itself as the promoter of freer elections and encouragement of greater participation while the Republicans are more resistant to reforms.

Pressure from Greens and Libs, at least so far as has been demonstrated, won't bring about the change. It has to start with the Dems or Reps.

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

Sparhawk

Just a quick point, jb2000: The most a Libertarian candidate has been able to garner in a Presidential election is 0.5%, and that was in '96. They did even worse in 2000, with 0.36% of the vote, and that was without a strong third-party candidate (strong IMO garnering more than 5% of the national vote; Perot nabbed 8.4% in '96). So the "nationally and consistently 2-3% of Americans vote Libertarian" is giving them more credit than they deserve.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Scipio

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."

SecretMethod70

The status quo is what it is because it was set up through bipartisan efforts. Not nonpartisan efforts. And you're right, some third party candidates got into the debate, and even got the needed amount of votes to make it on the ballot automatically in the next election. Then the bipartisan politicians changed the rules so that it would be much harder next time around for any of that to happen again.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Bentley Little

Although my comment really doens't have to do with the debates necesarily, but to say that inexperience in politics should negate, remove, or denounce any person/candidate from running is so anti-American. I am not ridiculing what you said Spar., (cause I don't think that was what you were saying) but wanted to say that our founding fathers were not experienced in politics. But they were very intelligent.

Today's politicians are just that, politicians are being elected for the money and the power. Our original Congress and "politicians" did not get paid. They did it for the love of our country. The only reason you and I cannot run is because we are not already wealthy or have powerful families. Look at the past 50 years of presidents. These men have know how to work the system, which does not mean they know how to run a country, rather, how to get elected. That is what it is all about now.

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

Sparhawk

We're kind of on a tangent at the moment, but:

I'm sorry you got the impression that I was saying that only a career in politics should be a prerequisite for office - I think men with strong backgrounds running large businesses (Warner in Virginia, or to use an older example, Perot), or even former generals (mandated with commanding thousands of troops); they both have a solid background in management that is, although not quite necessary, a very valuable quality to have in a candidate. Both Badnarik and Nader lack this kind of experience.

No offense, but your comment about the Founding Fathers betrays a naivete - they were, almost without exception, wealthy landowners, so to say that they did not get paid is beside the point (especially when, in fact, they did). And while there are certainly some politicians who know almost exclusively how to run for office to the detriment of actually administering well once in office (cough, bush), there are plenty of examples of politicians (which is *not* a dirty word) who put the two together very well.

I still have a few more thoughts on this, but I've been up for 23 hours. Cheers.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."