If third party candidates particiated in Presidential debates, it would only strengthen our republic.
RationalLiberty said 07/15, 01:11 AM
Cynthia McKinney of the Green party, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, and Independent Ralph Nader all should be allowed to participate in the presidential debates this fall. Their presence only serves to liven debate and encourage the flow of ideas. Even if their presence serves to undermine the republican and democratic candidates, our republic will be alive with alternate ideas and solutions to solve different problems. The political dialogue will open up, and for the first time, issues that impact the people, not corporate interests, will be heard and real debate, from the FULL political spectrum, can be achieved.
HokiePaul said 07/17, 04:47 PM
I'm going to disagree based on the point of debates, and the time constraints of a debate.
The whole point of a debate is help a person decide who is the best candidate for president. The host of the debate has an obligation to provide the audience with the best chance to decide (Not saying the host always does, but anyway ...).
In order to decide, a person must see candidates respond based on a variety of issues. The more candidates on stage answering questions, the less a person learns about any one candidate, and thus the less likely the person is to know which candidate is best. So there can not be an indefinate number of people debating (watch the early primary debates and see how difficult it can be with even 5 or 6). And the more people that are debating, the less likely the debate is to serve it's purpose of helping the audience decide.
So there is a tradeoff between having more debaters vs getting more detailed information on fewer debaters. It makes perfect sense to me then, only to allow candidates to debate if they have a reasonable chance to win. So I supported Ross Perot debating (he polled at 39% in June of 1992), but not McK, Nader, or Barr with <5%
RationalLiberty said 07/17, 10:50 PM
I agree with your analysis that the more debators give less time for each debator, and can impact the overall quality of the debate.
However, the circumstances surrounding this debate are different, and I would argue, the goals of these debates are far different than that of the primaries. In this election everyone knows about the two major candidates, and the debates in the fall give little new information about the major candidates, whereas in the primaries no one had ever heard of the candidates ideas until then. These debates in the fall would instead provide a new avenue for third party candidates, who normally would never get widespread coverage, a chance to get to know THEIR platforms and ideas. For many Americans, this would be their first and only chance to see outside ideas and outside opinions.
Because people have already heard the other major candidates from the mainstream media for the past 5 months, it would give the other candidates a medium in which to introduce their equally valid platforms with the american people.
because crowding the stage would reduce the amount of actual debate, what about a series of 2v2 debates between the major and minor candidates?
HokiePaul said 07/18, 04:03 PM
I think the point you make about "everyone knows about the major candidates" is a big misconception. People like us (who spend time on elephant-donkey, follow politics during the primaries, etc) make up a very small portion of the general voting population. Even if most people did pay attention, having 5 months of "mainstream media" is probably not enough to really know what's going on. Debates are so valuable because the information comes strait from the candidates, not from some network chasing ratings.
I personally enjoy hearing other party platforms and would probably watch such a debate if it happened. But it is sort of a moot point. To actually hold a debate on TV, 3 people must agree (TV, Debater 1, and Debater 2). The TV networks won't agree because of ratings. People want to see the two leaders fight it out (e.g. The Superbowl gets better ratings than the Playoffs, which get better ratings than the Regular Season). The major party candidate will also not agree because they are not really competing with the 3rd party candidate unless the 3rd party gains some support.
If the 3rd party can get some support to threated the leaders, however, then everything changes.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Plus, I don't see how splitting Americans even more between additional parties would strengthen the republic.
Katelyn | 07/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry to correct you, but H. Ross Perot participated in the presidential debates of 1992, and he was an independent.
Kyle | 07/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Oh, thanks for the correction. I didn't know that. Thank you :)
Katelyn | 07/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
katelyn, I beg to differ. Clashing of opinions as I see it, is never detrimental, and even though it may be a circus like event, the people would get to see these candidates in the third parties who do campaign as hard or harder than the major canididates, just to get on the ballot. The problem with the third parties are not that they are not genuine in support or ideology, its just the media does not pay attention to their platforms. Splitting Americans between additional parties is a good thing to me, and necessary, not only because the democrats are not acting like an opposition party, but I also think that if people broaden their perspectives, they will know more than if they never got that opportunity; even if it they reject outright what someone says, it is good because they had to THINK about WHY they rejected it! We cannot be intellectually lazy and have other people come up with our opinions for us!
RationalLiberty | 07/30/08
Report Offensive Comment
Not allowing thrid parties into these debates is what perpetuates the two party system. Third parties do not have the money, resources or support to compete on the same level as Dem and GOP candidates. This is a problem that adding them to televison debates will not solve. We need campaign finance reform that will allow those with limited resources but superior qualifications to compete against better of two evils situation we have right now.
thepigfarmer | 07/31/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
The only time a third-party candidate has been included in debates was in a movie, and that was because the character had enough support to be considered in the two-party debate. To include three additional presidential less-than-hopefuls would be a circus-like performance. And having a series of debates between the candidates would be more of a headache than necessary. If a third-party candidate wanted to be taken as seriously as the two major candidates, they should do the same: campaign on the road, go overseas to other nations, do fundraisers to get their name out there and such.
Katelyn | 07/21/08
Report Offensive Comment