Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I received an alert in my email today regarding the upcoming debates. This made me think of the past 2 elections and the issue of open debates. In the 2000 election Ralph Nader was polling around 5% in the polls before the debates. I believe if he had a chance to participate, his poll numbers would have been a lot higher. Banishing 3rd party candidates from the presidential debates is going to keep them from gaining a larger audience and getting their platform out into the public.
The same thing happened in 2004 and will happen again. According to a Zogby poll a majority want to see Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate, in the 3 upcoming debates. Yet once again the commission on presidential debates will prevent him from participating. The commission seems to be more interested in representing the two major parties than listening to the voters in this country.
Representatives by both candidates have negotiated a contract, that dictates the terms of the debates. Yet, in order to shield the major party candidates from criticism, the Commission has refused to release the debate contract to the public. Shouldn't the public have a right to see this contract? How is this an open and democratic process if there are back room deals that we do not know about?
What can we do to change this and why are we allowing this?
Your thoughts on this?
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
I received an alert in my email today regarding the upcoming debates. This made me think of the past 2 elections and the issue of open debates. In the 2000 election Ralph Nader was polling around 5% in the polls before the debates. I believe if he had a chance to participate, his poll numbers would have been a lot higher. Banishing 3rd party candidates from the presidential debates is going to keep them from gaining a larger audience and getting their platform out into the public.
The same thing happened in 2004 and will happen again. According to a Zogby poll a majority want to see Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate, in the 3 upcoming debates. Yet once again the commission on presidential debates will prevent him from participating. The commission seems to be more interested in representing the two major parties than listening to the voters in this country.
Representatives by both candidates have negotiated a contract, that dictates the terms of the debates. Yet, in order to shield the major party candidates from criticism, the Commission has refused to release the debate contract to the public. Shouldn't the public have a right to see this contract? How is this an open and democratic process if there are back room deals that we do not know about?
What can we do to change this and why are we allowing this?
Your thoughts on this?
Hmm..
I would certainly be interested in hearing what a third or even fourth party would have to say on the issues. Excellent post..
Who knows.. it may have changed my mind.. it may not.. depending on what others from other parties had to say on the issues.
I would love to see it. I wish we could have more debates, which might enable the third party candidates to participate. In the past it's seemed that there is such a time crunch for that TV hour that they get squeezed out - a lot of times their answers have seemed almost a waste of airtime to me, but others would want to hear them and it's only fair that they be heard.
I guess I'm pretty in the dark about some of this. I've often seen where third or fourth party candidates were never invited to debate and it's really not fair. Is it just another way for the two dominant parties to keep the others down?
It'd be wonderful to come up with a solution. Does anyone have a lot of info on this? Who actually prevents them from debating?
Well our two party dichotomy that is in place now is not really a dichotomy, nor do both major parties wish to change this. One party says, "We should cut taxes in order to encourage growth and pay for spending". The other party will say, "We need to raise taxes in order to pay for our spending". What neither party is actually address is the level of spending, only the approach on how to maintain the current level of spending. The premise is assumed as fact and only the conclusion differs.
More simply, one party will say that we need to do "X" because of this reason and the other party says we need to do "X" because of other reasons, never asking whether "X" is the cause for a change in action. In some cases, there are clear examples of where something is a proven or given fact, but in many there is not.
Since the candidacy of Ross Perot, both parties have agreed to change many of the laws regarding the process and steps required to get on the Presidential ballot. A third party candidate will have to petition most states, get a set number of signatures on a given petition just to get on the ballot. If they get on the ballot in ever state then they have to prove or polling will have to show that they can garnish a certainly level of support (say 10-15%) of the vote in order to participate in the Presidential debates. This then prevents those marginal candidates from gaining national exposure.
Even still, third parties will have to expect that things will be stacked against them and that they will have to fight to gain national attention in a meaningful way. No one is going to help them do this, they have to take it. Having been part of a third party candidates bid for the White House, I have seen what it takes in order to "get there".
In the meantime, both political parties in America will do everything in their power to remain as such. Giving the American voter a choice between why X should change for this reason or why X should change for that reason, never allowing a discussion of whether X should change or not in the first place..
The only way this will ever change is if people grow tired of the current arrangement and demand reform in this process. However it is very much ingrained in our culture and way of thinking that politics boils down to "this or that", simple black and white. You can buy a shoes from Mexico, a car from Germany, a TV from Japan, and toys from China, but when it comes to politics, the American people have only one more choice for President than the people of Iraq did under Saddam. Very odd considering that nearly everything else in our life is a plethora of choice.
I was also involved in a third party candidate's bid for the White House and we and hundreds of dedicated volunteers put in many, many hours collecting signatures, registering people to vote etc. While we were collecting signatures I was amazed that many people did not even know this candidate was running, had never heard anything about this stand on the issues etc. And the two major parties make sure it stays that way, if you are not in the debates, you are effectively shut out. Many people also seemed perfectly satisfied with having two candidates to chose from!
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
I guess I'm pretty in the dark about some of this. I've often seen where third or fourth party candidates were never invited to debate and it's really not fair. Is it just another way for the two dominant parties to keep the others down?
It'd be wonderful to come up with a solution. Does anyone have a lot of info on this? Who actually prevents them from debating?
Part of the problem, as I understand it, Jammie, is that there are 18 candidates for President, and determining which of them should or should not be included at any given point is non-trivial. Any threshold based on percentage would be arbitrary, having all 18 be involved would be cumbersome at best and relatively fruitless if one's goal is meaningful information at a 'debate.'
(There are those who might argue that this is not significantly different from the present version of the debates.)
Further, as soon as the threshold is lowered to permit even the least well supported candidate in, be sure that the number of "candidates" would balloon well past that figure of 18, if not this cycle, then the next.
********
The apparent culprit behind the exclusionary rules for televised debates would be the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD): Commission on Presidential Debates
This link is to the 2008 guidelines: http://www.debates.org/media/cpd_sitesel07.pdf (broken link)
********
For all that it is easy to pin the problem on the political parties, who are rightly described as having an investment in keeping it a two party system, in my opinion the blame or credit best belongs to the American people. In recent years, we have seen independents win races for Governor in Maine and Minnesota. Similarly, we have seen independents win races for the US Senate in Vermont and Connecticut.
What, then, is keeping the American public from creating a viable third party?
I am a member of the League of Women Voters (speaking only for myself here) and we conduct debates with large numbers of candidates. It can be done. For one thing, you give them a time limit on answering questions, opening/closing statements, etc.
The problem with American politics is money, political clout and racial bias. It takes an obscene amount of money to pay for: TV air time and media ad campaigns, a chartered bus and plane. offices in most every state, paid staff for these offices, expenses associated with several campaign stops in most states, personal travel expenses for the candiate and is entourage. The Ralph Nader's do not have the money of the clout; they have good ideas; sometimed. We the people have little to with any of it. IF we did, we would not have voter fraud nor the $XXXM dollars worth of voter machines that do not work as promised.
Since we know that no Senator is qualififed for Presidency, and no governor -regardless of how cute, charming or experienced they are is prepared for it - what do we do?
The only thing I think we can look at then is charachter, but to do so we must be willing to set aside personal preference, religion, party platform and political rhetoric. The choices left are a young black man and an old white man who both claim to love God and country.
My comments are based on a CNN special and C-Span.
One is a congressman of many years seniority, the other a Harvard law graduate who turned down offers from Wall Street to take a $14K annual salary and work in the worst area of Chicago as a Community Organizer.
One has seven homes and a wife who is an heiress to a multi-million dollar beer distribulorship. The other has one home and a wife who is a corporate lawyer. Regardless of the character or intent of the seller, there is nothing to suggest his home purchase was not legal and binding according to state and federal law. .
One man was the son of a Naval Admiral. The other was of a mixed marriage and a broken home.
One candidate has been married more than once to beatiful women younger than himself. He regrets he cheated on his first wife. According to CNN he forgot to mention he applied for a marriage license while he was *still married" and living with his wife. His VP choice is a yonger, pertty woman. The other candidate is still married amd they are raising two children together. His VP choice is an older man of considerable experiennce.
One man who of late claims to be an agent for change has seven former Washington lobbyiest on his staff. The other man who has talked about change since the beginning of his campaign does not.
I grew up in mixed family, too. Dad was the Republican whilse monther was the Democrat. I heard politics at home for 47 years. It was never about smearing a candidate, demeaning a candidate or his family, and it was niever about character assination. Politics have gone down hill in a hurry. It's sad.
I think we have plenty to think about before November.
I am a member of the League of Women Voters (speaking only for myself here) and we conduct debates with large numbers of candidates. It can be done. For one thing, you give them a time limit on answering questions, opening/closing statements, etc.
It can be done, technically, but if we assume a 90 minute (the 2004 length) 'debate' with no commercial interruptions or even any verbiage from the moderator, each candidate would get at most 5 minutes per person, when we have 18 candidates.
Doubling the length of the debate may double that 5 minutes (which is really considerably less), but it would also cost audience.
(I will note that usually the candidates are given time limits in the televised debates. Whether they stick to them is a different question.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
