open debates

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'm not in favor of a complete open debate as I have no desire to see people who will only garner the votes of their immediate family & friends- and for good reason.

That said, I'd like to see more than just the 2 major party candidates. I think reasonable guidelines should be further set to allow for more parties to have their candidates debating.

As to why we don't have more parties making a dent? While there are a host of reasons, the main reason is they aren't puting forth good candidates.

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

I would LOVE to include other parties in the debates, especially since the 3rd parties are more in line with my beliefs - particularly Libertarian and Green Party. I am a supporter of Ralph Nader, and always have been, but I simply cannot vote for him in major elections. Why?? Because his party doesn't have enough recognition yet, so I'd only be taking a vote away from the Democrats (which is how I vote otherwise). I think if the other parties were allowed to participate in debates, they would gradually gain acceptance and support... then we'd finally have a wider pool to choose from, instead of having to choose "the lesser of two evils" as I currently feel at each election.

Gizmo, I totally understand. This is the quandry in which I find myself. In the past, I always thought my vote would be, as they say, "wasted", because that candidate could not possibly win. Yet, I'm beginning to think as someone said, we (the people) are in great part responsible for bolstering the 2-party system. We should all vote for the candidate we consider best, regardless of his/her chances to win, because that will, over time, bring that third or fourth party to the mainstream. The only people who 'waste' their votes are those who don't vote at all. I believe this may be the first time I exercise my right to choose and not be swayed by other considerations. I just can't see where choosing between the lesser of two evils is a wise choice, and that's what I would be doing if I eliminated the other candidates from consideration. I believe the people need to take a stand and make a statement, and thereby make a dent in the 2-party system that is so lock-tight that it doesn't want to give us a real choice.

Excellent topic, by the way. Thanks for asking the question Katzenfreund.

[miss_media]

How can open debates?

[ParkTwain]

I would encourage all of you to read about the Commission on Presidential Debates (www.debates.org). Who founded it? How is it funded? Who are its present leadership?

I think you will find that it is a strange thing that a particular nonprofit, tax-exempt organization has taken unto themselves this role of presenting the presidential candidates to the public on television, obviously a very powerful medium.

For instance, here is the page found at the CPD website that describes the criteria used to permit candidates to participate in the televised debates.

CPD: Candidate Selection Process (http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html - broken link)

Notice the rule B.2. about whether the candidate has his/her name on the ballot in enough states to permit the mathematical possibility of an Electoral College win. Also notice the rule B.3. about whether the candidate has achieved "level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations." I think you can see how these rules can be construed and enforced in a manner that places at a great disadvantage a grass-roots candidacy. I'm also guessing that the 15% threshold was chosen based on a historical survey of the third-party movements in the 20th c in America. How many ever reached a popularity level of 15% of the voting public?

Putting these kinds of rules into place for presidential debates effectively limits the debate to those organizations that have already achieved national reach and probably also a significant budget for operations. That means that the candidate from such an organization is also likely to be representing a party that is relatively well developed and relatively well funded. So money would be the effective criterion, not the nature or quality of the political ideas. So the net result is a discussion only within a narrow range of opinions about national political issues during the televised debates.

Bottom line: The CPD is a relatively new (founded in 1987) nonprofit institution that "sanctions" televised debates among certain presidential candidates that is effectively overly restrictive as to the range of opinions likely to be aired that address national political issues. If you look at its founders, present leadership, etc., you can see that it exists to further the interests of today's two dominant political parties. This approach rewards organizations that raise large amounts of money, rather than encourage a high quality of political ideas and discussion. This approach is inherently anti-democratic, I would argue, because it stifles grass-roots-based movements on national political issues; that is, this approach limits the range of opinions aired during national political debates. The major political problems in this country are already the result of a stranglehold by big capital on the range of debate on national political issues. I encourage each of you to boycott these debates and to ask your friends and family members to do likewise.

[rightofcenter]

I am torn on this between the theoretical and the reality of the situation.

Theoretically I would love to have more options with the debates open to those other options. But until something drastic changes, the reality of the situation is that for better or worse we do have a 2 party system and one of those two candidates will be the next President. If that is the case, I don’t want distractions in the debates from others that will not be President.

[pandorasbox]

There will never be a third party PREZ unless the house and the congress is divided into 3rds for the simple fact the dem &rep would aways vote aganist what they want. true or false?

Originally Posted by katzenfreund

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?

[Brian.Pearson]

As it stands, some candidates are lucky to field one or two questions in any one debate during the the pre-nomination campaign.

[GloryB]

We need a third party. It would serve as a great catalyst to stop the polarization nonsense in the Congress. However, historically it only serves to split the conservative vote so people are afraid to go there.

Wouldn't it make a great movie to have a third party Presidential candidate do so well in a debate until it swayed a majority of votes away from the main parties? It would be greater in real time...