The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Cryingwolf334
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It should be Easier for Third Party Candidates to get on the Ballot

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,373 times Debate No: 3432
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

My stance is that Third Party candidates should have just as easy of a time to get on the presidential ballot as the Republicans and Democrats. Thus, the polar opposite of my stance that my opponent will have to defend is that it should NOT be easier for third party candidates to get on the ballot. Now to my points.

Nowhere in the constitution does it specify how a candidate can be nominated for president. So the States have taken it upon themselves to make their own requirements for how one can get onto the ballot. The most common methods are heavy ballot fines, approx. 10,000 signatures, and an extremely complicated and long filing process. The funny thing is is that Republicans and Democrats alike seem to be exempt from the process. Most States simply put the GOP and Dem. candidates on the ballot after the primaries. This is unfair. Nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights does it mandate that the American democratic system is restricted to two parties, or that the only parties that can participate are the Republicans and Democrats. I believe that these two monarchs of this democracy have purposefully orchestrated it, abusing the power vested by the 10th amendment, to make it impossible or at least overly difficult for any kind of third party to run. This is not right, and is in direct violation of the many freedoms our forefather's so desperately fought for when they were oppressed by England's dictators. So, my stance is that it should be made easier for third parties, whether Green, Libertarian, Constitution or otherwise for their respective candidates to get on the official presidential ballot, debates, and all other privileges/rights that the two major ones have so far rejected to the underdog. No one party, regardless of popularity or monetary status is above another. Remember, this is a country where all people are created equal, so are their opinions, and therefore, so are their political parties.
Cryingwolf334

Con

Third party candidates have always had a rough time making it on the ballot, let alone getting votes on the ballots, and this is for good reason. Our 2 party system gives general ideas of what different people believe in, and both give different options on solving problems. So i will move on to my points

1.It is good to be difficult for third party candidates to make it onto ballots because people need enough help already as it is with our 2 party system.

Recently, a study took place to see how much people really knew about democracy, and what these studies found was that these people got %20 of the answers correct. This means that even when there is only major two parties, people still dont know enough about democracy to fit another one in. the government is saving these people the time and money that they will lose bc people simply wont look into their values.

Secondly and most importantly, The election could be easily skewed without it being so hard to fit a third party candidate.

In our countries two party system, it is necessary for it to be harder to put in third parties or there would be dozens of people running. In the general election, we can have twelve different people running because of all the third parties. When you have a dozen people running, the election could easily be taken advantage of, and the election may not actually reflect what the people really want. For example, the evangelical Christians make up a large percentage of the American vote, primarily in the Deep South states. Now if there are twelve people running in the general election, the winning candidate may only need 15% of the vote! That means that if most of these evangelicals vote for the same candidate or only %15 of Americans vote for that candidate, than man or woman will win the election! So even though 85% of American voters do not think that this man should be president, he or she will still be elected into office. This does not seem right and would infringe on core democratic values such as justice, and the common good.

So in conclusion, it should not be easier for third party candidate to get on the ballot because, as i have proven in my second point, it would actually infringe on core democratic values. My opponent arguments only say that people deserve this chance to stance for what they believe in, but in reality, if people want a person in power, he or she will be voted in...
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

First off, thank you Cryingwolf334 for taking up this debate. For clarification purposes, my method of making it easier for Third Parties to get onto the ballot is the same method our forefathers had to create this country, being that they simply needed a party and a candidate to represent it. No signatures, no fines, no ridiculous paper maze, just democracy at work. Now to points disprove your points.

1) Difficulty is good - It is not. The reason that people are not interested in politics anymore is because it is so hopeless to get involved. The Two has made it so. They have formulated voting and ballots so that the peoples voice is gagged, made an extremely complicated maze of paperwork so that its hard for them to even get equal footing, and have had the gaul to even make there be a cost for voting, so even if someone wanted to take action they might not even be able to afford it. Now, because of this, only the voice of the Two is heard. Under the guise of these 'general ideas' as you say, people think they belong to a party, and thus are under the delusion that that party will just take care of them as long as they vote for them. They then get complacent, under the impression that everything is alright. This is why only 20% know, because only 20% actually care anymore. Back when America was founded, nearly every single person cared about politics because they mattered. But now, because it is so complicated to understand, let alone act in, politics has just been left to politicians. The people have been brainwashed with monotony. They've heard the same message over and over again that they don't care anymore. This is exactly the reason why third parties are needed. Politics needs a new voice! Or voices! Someone willing to break the droning and start saying things differently. Why is environmentalism so popular these days? Why is National Health care suddenly going through peoples minds? Because someone new spoke out on it! This is what any third party will do: speak out. New ideas will emerge, some people agree with, some that they don't, but the point is they will start thinking! They will pay attention and start to actually think about their values, rather than which side they fit in best with! Once new things happen, people will pay attention, and I guarantee that that 20% will raise to 80% in less than 5 years. Third parties will actually increase people's political attention, rather than detract from it. The 20% now only gives further proof that the Two is failing and corrupting it's people.

2) Skewing the Election - The current system is already skewed. That's how Andrew Jackson and Al Gore lost both of their elections. Even though they clearly won the popular vote, and the electoral college is supposed to accurately simplify and represent those votes, they still lost. Therefore, even if it did remain only the Two, the voting system is already flawed. But supposing what you did say had any merit, and as I've just shown, it doesn't, that is still not an excuse, especially in today's technological world. With the advances we have today we should easily be able to keep track of any number of votes for even 50 parties. The difficulty of counting them is not the people's job, but the vote counter's. Our job isn't to simplify theirs. Instead, we are suppose to give them a job they have to work at. Next, you say that the election could be taken advantage of. Not necessarily. Currently, that is the case, only because there are only two ways to go. Already majorities are turning the vote tides. This is a technique politicians are perfectly aware of and use. McCain knows to strike at veterans and war supporters, Obama is tackling minorities, and Clinton is going for women and special interest groups, all of which add up in the end. Third parties would also be able to do the same thing. Sure the Evangelicals could take a huge chunk, but there's also Catholics, Agnostics, Businesses, etc that any candidate could go after. Besides, not every single Evangelical will simultaneously agree with only 1 candidate, there are always mixed feelings in any group. So this claim of yours is flawed, in many, many ways.

Third party groups bring the choice back to Americans. There's more selection, more opinions, more idea's. Continuing this reign of the Two is not only illogical, but also the exact opposite of core democratic values. The Two already practically a dictatorship. There's only 1 difference: its a split dictatorship. If its not one ruler then it can only be the other. There are only two voices. Two voices though, cannot speak for everyone. Third parties are the true upholder's of democratic values, as they give the people back their voice, not generalize and manipulate it.

So, I have just shown that your claims are not only already in claim now with the Two, but in many ways were created by them. I have shown that Third parties can fix these problems of yours. So what other reasons do have to show why a more people oriented, more democratic, and more logical political system should not be put into place?
Cryingwolf334

Con

Cryingwolf334 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Well well well. I will not further add to my already made arguments as my opponent has failed to respond. Therefore, on my part this debate is finished. I will remind the reader that your voting is not based on your personal opinions about third parties but on which of us, being Cryingwolf334 or myself, proved their premises better. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote, you can do so in the comments area.

Also, if you feel the same way I do, I have created a facebook Political Party that advocates for just such an opinion, as well as any others that you, the people, chose. It can be found here:

http://www.facebook.com...

If you have a facebook, and join, I encourage you to invite your friends so we can spread the message that much faster. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Cryingwolf334

Con

Cryingwolf334 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Oh but you see, it is your desire for us to settle this like children. I am equally happy whether it occurs in an "actual" debate or a debate in comments. It is thus you who has the desire in question. To act toward the fulfillment of a desire only makes sense if it is in some manner YOUR desire. Therefore the question of who ought to challenge whom if indeed the face values are true has an obvious answer.

Thank you for shopping at Objectivism.™
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
Wow, you really just won't let this subject go? How about this as a resolution: you challenge me to an actually debate and we can settle this like children.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
It only means you and maybe a few historians do not consider them monarchs. But back then, both they and hundreds of followers saw either as a monarch. They ruled, people were ruled over, laws, politics, economic issues, and so one continued under their seperate but contemporary reigns. Therefore they are both monarchs of 1 land. Booyakasha
"

Let's see here. The "hundreds of followers" is essentially an ad populum. And the existence of laws is not proof of monarchy, monarchy means ONE man does ALL the ruling in a given sphere. There cannot be two such things in the same territory.
Posted by schoolglutton 8 years ago
schoolglutton
Crying Wolf should look into instant runoff/ranked choice voting. You get at least a 50% +1 majority every time with one trip to the voting booth.
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
Tarzan: The topic asks us what SHOULD be, not what legally IS.
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
It only means you and maybe a few historians do not consider them monarchs. But back then, both they and hundreds of followers saw either as a monarch. They ruled, people were ruled over, laws, politics, economic issues, and so one continued under their seperate but contemporary reigns. Therefore they are both monarchs of 1 land. Booyakasha
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Noooo, not really. There alot of cases where two opposing kings ruled the same land, fightng over who would really rule'

Which means that until the war was resolved, they could not both be considered actual monarchs, only potential.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Reserve Clause - states can make rules about what the constitution does not specifically address (paraphrased of course).

As you point out, the constitution doesn't set any rules about campaigning or parties. Therefore, the state's laws stand. They may be unjust, but they stand.
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
Noooo, not really. There alot of cases where two opposing kings ruled the same land, fightng over who would really rule. Educate yourself.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"two monarchs "

Contradiction :D
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BrokenDoors 8 years ago
BrokenDoors
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ClayTrainor 8 years ago
ClayTrainor
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Harboggles 8 years ago
Harboggles
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by schoolglutton 8 years ago
schoolglutton
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Darth_Grievous_42Cryingwolf334Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30