the debates

[kfseattle]

Do folks here tend to support the Commission on Presidential Debates?  This is the "non-partisan" group run by an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.
The main complaint against them is that they keep 3rd party candidates out by a rule stating that to get in, a candidate needs to have 15% support in a national poll.

There is this alternative group that formed recently called Open Debates that is trying to set up another set of debates that would include 3rd party candidates and issues that get swept under the rug at the watered-down CPD debates.  

Links:
Open Debates http://www.opendebates.org/
Commission on Presidential Debates  http://www.debates.org/

Thoughts? Ideas?

[King]

It would have been interesting to see the Reform party in a debates in '96 or '00.

[ilikeverin]

The CPD is pure BS. They are the two party protection racket.

Yeah.  Let Peroutka debate!



In all seriousness, though, I think that the threshhold should be lowerered quite a bit, if not eliminated.  I'm tired of just Democrats and Republicans already, and I'm not voting yet!

(lucky I live in 4-major-party Minnesota )

[zachman]

The CPD is pure BS. They are the two party protection racket.

Yeah.  Let Peroutka debate!



In all seriousness, though, I think that the threshhold should be lowerered quite a bit, if not eliminated.  I'm tired of just Democrats and Republicans already, and I'm not voting yet!

(lucky I live in 4-major-party Minnesota )

The Constitution Party is just the extension of a dying Prohibition Party. We won't have a successful third party until a group of progressive Senators create a new Progressive Party. John McCain is probably the only man in Washington who could start one of these parties.

[Lunar]

I want to hear from the two main candidates.  The whole electoral system is a two party system that is inherently strucutred against third parties.

I'd sacrifice all of those third parties so I can hear the two main candidates battle it out three times as much.  Change the system so voting third party makes more sense and I'll be a strong advocate of open debates.

I also want a more intense debate style where the two candidates grill each other.  Even taking notes on a pad of paper so that they can adress all of their oponent's points.

[© tweed]

The CPD is pure BS. They are the two party protection racket.

There should only be two candidates in the debate.

[MODU]

My thought is, if a party is on the ticket in all 50 states, they should be a participant in the debates.  Most third-party candidates don't make it into a majority of the states in time for the election, so they don't really have a chance of winning the election.  However, like the Reform, Constitution, or Green parties, if they can get into all the states, they should get into the debates.

[kfseattle]

Why is the system set up against third party candidates?  

I think this is one of those things that becomes agreed upon because everyone says it's so.  But it's not.  All you have to do it get 270 electoral votes...doesn't matter what party you're from.

[MODU]

There has been so much of a push for a third party to join the ranks, that both the Democrats and Republicans will do their best to keep them out of the circuit.  They had no choice in 1992 when Perot came on the scene, but they did a good job of keeping him out in 1996.  In 2000, Nader took up for Perot and kept the push going.

What we need now is for the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Reform parties to file a joint complaint to the Supreme court indicating that the Republican and Democratic parties are infringing on their Constitutional right to represent America during national elections.  The court doesn't have to actually hear the case, since once news regarding this action hits the mainstream media, the silent majority in the US will cause enough uproar that the Democrats and Republicans will have no choice BUT to let them participate.

Like I had said before, if the party can get their candidate on the ticket in all 50 states (a must to be considered a serious candidate), then they are entitled to all the benefits of the election campaign, including the debates.

[MODU]

There has been so much of a push for a third party to join the ranks, that both the Democrats and Republicans will do their best to keep them out of the circuit.  They had no choice in 1992 when Perot came on the scene, but they did a good job of keeping him out in 1996.  In 2000, Nader took up for Perot and kept the push going.

What we need now is for the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Reform parties to file a joint complaint to the Supreme court indicating that the Republican and Democratic parties are infringing on their Constitutional right to represent America during national elections.  The court doesn't have to actually hear the case, since once news regarding this action hits the mainstream media, the silent majority in the US will cause enough uproar that the Democrats and Republicans will have no choice BUT to let them participate.

Like I had said before, if the party can get their candidate on the ticket in all 50 states (a must to be considered a serious candidate), then they are entitled to all the benefits of the election campaign, including the debates.

Much of what you just suggested has been tried. BTW, the Libertarians have qualified their national ticket on all 50 state ballots plus DC continuously since 1992 but nobody in the media cared enough to ask why THEY were not invited to debate.

Just got to keep trying.  You know what they say about the squeeky wheel....