The Instigator
BrendanD19
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Ariesx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

US Presidential Debates Should Include Third Party Candidates

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
BrendanD19
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 85883
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

BrendanD19

Pro

This debate will be about Presidential debates and whether third party candidates with ballot access to 270 electoral votes or more should be allowed to participate in presidential debates.
Presidential Debates shall be defined as the formal debates between presidential candidates durring the general election which are hosted by the Comission on Presidential Debates.

The format will be very simple
  • Round 1: Acceptance
  • Round 2: Introduction of Arguments (No Rebuttles)
  • Round 3: Further Arguments, Elaboration and Rebuttles
  • Round 4: Rebuttles and Elaboration (NO NEW ARGUMENTS)
  • Round 5: Final Rebuttles and Conclusion
Debate Round No. 1
BrendanD19

Pro

Contention 1: Marginalization
Subpoint A: Exclusion Marginalizes Third Parties
By excluding third parties from presidential debates, third parties are effectively excluded from the national discourse and subsequently marginalized. By marginalizing third parties, third parties find it very hard to organize and grow.

According to Open the Debates, a non partisan, non profit which advocates fair debates: "Exclusion from the general election presidential debates is the death knell of a political campaign. A candidate who fails to gain admission to the debates is automatically relegated to fringe status and destined for marginal support at the polls. Conversely, inclusion provides a candidate with an opportunity to climb in the polls and prevail in the election."

https://www.opendebates.org...
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Subpoint B: Americans Want a Third Party
According to Gallup Poll published on January 7, 2015, a record 43% of Americans do not identify with either party, more than Democrats or Republicans. This is a clear sign that Americans are dissatisfied with the two party system, and this is only further evidenced by another Gallup poll from September of 2015, where 60% of Americans say that a third party is needed in politics
Despite this, a third party presence is still lacking in American politics, this is thanks in large part to marginalization.

http://www.gallup.com...
http://www.gallup.com...


Subpoint C: Allowing Third Party to Participate will Demarginalize Third Parties, Empirics Prove
When third parties and independents are allowed to participate third parties are allowed to enter the political discourse and are treated as legitimate political forces, they are allowed to enter the political mainstream and gain support. This has been shown to be the case in numorous examples.
In 1992, independent candidate Ross Perot was allowed to parrticipate in the debates even though Perot had only 7% support in the polls. This resulted in Perot obtaining 19% of the the popular vote in the 1992 election.
Examples also exist at the state level. In the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial election, Jesse Ventura was initially polling at around 10%, lower than would be required to participate in a presidential debate (15%). After he was allowed to participate in 3 debates, Ventura climbed to 37% and won the election. According to Ventura, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”

https://www.opendebates.org...
http://www.usnews.com...

Contention 2: Fairness and Democracy
In order for elections to be free and fair, all voices, who have the ability to win, must be given a FAIR chance to make their case. If only two candidates are allowed to make their case on the national stage and if voters can only see two candidates in a head to head comparrison, this gives an obvious unfair advantage to thos two candidates. In order for elections to be fair, all feesible options must be allowed to make their case.

Ariesx

Con

Note: I will be arguing that the idea of there being third party contenders is idealistic, and will have unintended consequences that will have drastic consequences.
Contention 1: Unintended Consequences
Sub-point A: Too many contenders

Political Party Dates of when they were founded
America First Party2002
America's Party2008
American Conservative Party2008
American Freedom Party2010
Black Riders Liberation Party1996
Christian Liberty Party*1996
Citizens Party of the United States2004
Communist Party USA1919I
Freedom Socialist Party1966
Independent American Party1998
Justice Party2011
Modern Whig Party2007
National Socialist Movement1974
New Black Panther Party1989
Objectivist Party2008
Party for Socialism and Liberation2004
Peace and Freedom Party1967
Prohibition Party1869
Reform Party of the United States of America
Socialist Action1983
Socialist Alternative1986
Socialist Equality Party1966
Socialist Party USA1973
Socialist Workers Party1938
Transhumanist Party2014
United States Marijuana Party2002
United States Pacifist Party1983
United States Pirate Party2006
Unity Party of America2004
Veterans Party of America2013
Workers World Party1959
https://en.wikipedia.org...
All of these political parties have independent philosophies that Americans would have to take a lot more time understanding. Also, the debates will have to be more organized. There are 31 parties. An ideal situation would be where all 31 parties have one contender. That would mean that there would be 31 political candidates, and there would have to be at least more than 3 debates to actually be able to have an organized debate. There were above 13 Republican candidates right now. Almost all of them that were low in the polls said that they did not get enough time to speak. I can only speculate that the same thing would probably happen if Pro's logic was passed into law. This would have a lot of unintended consequences, and create disorder in debates. We would likely see third party candidates complaining about time and media coverage. This leads me to my next point.
Sub-Point B- Media Coverage
We all know that the media is has certain bias to certain candidates. This is just a fact. The media can just have a certain bias toward a Democrat vs Republican Debate. They will probably cover the Democrats and Republicans more.
For example, many people believe that Ron Paul did not get fair media coverage. http://www.ronpaul.com...
"From January 1-August 14, Paul has been a dominant newsmaker in only 27 campaign stories. (To be considered a dominant newsmaker, someone must be featured in at least 50% of a story.) That is less than one-quarter of the media attention generated by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (120 stories), who is the top newsmaker among Republican candidates. And he has received 25% as much coverage as Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman (108 stories). "
This is just evidence of media bias. This will definitely happen under a system Pro wants. https://www.youtube.com...
Jon Stewart does a perfect segment explaining this.

Contention 2: Countries with third parties
There is much arguing that happens when third parties are allowed to compete and win. An example of this would be Germany before Nazism. There were so many parties before Nazism that nothing would happen in Germany. There were so many parties running that it would split the vote. People grew tired of the fact that nothing was happening to help them. Hitler seemed like a reasonable alternative to them. Nothing was happening to help the common man, and a passionate man comes and looks like he really wants to help. This led to a dictatorship. The dictatorship actually did things to help people, and the people loved the government for this very reason, and forgot about democracy. If Pro values democracy so much, than he should realize that there is a probability of a consequence happening just like this happening to America. My reasoning for this comes from the rise of Donald Trump.

Thank you for creating this debate.
I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
BrendanD19

Pro

Responses
Fist Con Argument: Unintended Consequences
Subpoint A: Too Many Contenders
It would not be feasible to have 31 candidates on the stage, however this is not what is being debated. Only third party candidates with ballot access to 270 electoral votes, or more, would participate in the debates. In 2012, the only canidates who would have been eligible were the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, and Green Party Candidate, Jill Stein.
As of now in 2016, the only eligible candidates would be the Green candidate and the Libertarian candidate.
And based on the format used for the General Election Debates, it would be very easy to add two more candidates.
In the UK parliamentary election debates, the format was essentially identical to the US General Elections format, 7 party leaders participated in the debate, and no significant disorder "disorder", with the exception of an interuption from a member of the studio audience.
The same is true in many other election debate around the world, including in Canada, Ireland, Israel, Spain, New Zealand and Brazil. This idea that adding two more candidate to a stage would someone cause disorder therefore bears no weight.

Subpoint B: Media Coverage

It is true that the media is biased against certain candidates, however while Ron Paul recieved less coverage than other Republican candidates in 2012, just as we are seeing with Bernie Sanders in 2016, however they were still permitted some media coverage and allowed to participate in primary debates. Since 2015, Bernie Sanders has been mentioned in the mainstream media* 36,322 times. Green Party candidate Jill Stein, on the other hand, has recieved only 3 mentions in the mainstream media. This shows that Third parties recive no coverage right now in the status quo. By alowing them into debates, the media would be forced to at least mention third party candidates.
*Mainstrem media in this context refers to MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Fox Business News and CNBC.

http://television.gdeltproject.org...
https://archive.org...

Second Con Argument: Countries with third parties
The reasoning behind the this argument is that by allowing third parties to participate, this creates too much discord in governments. He compares this to Wiemar Germany, however this argument is frankly illogical.
The Nazis did not rise to power because of the multiparty democracy in Germany. The Hitler's rise to power was caused by the economic turmoil Germany was facing, which the Nazi's blamed on Jews and communists. Through a sucessful propoganda campaign, the Nazi's were able to win over voters and gain power, in addition to the use of Violence against the Socialist SPD and the Communist KPD. We must also remember that the Nazis never achieved more than 43% of the vote. Furthermore the German people did not "forget about democracy", Democracy was abolished through the creation of a police state under a climate of fear after the burning of the Reichstag. This was of course the Enabling acts, which allowed the Chancellor to rule by decree, created a state of emergency and allowed the Nazi party to ban other political parties.
Numorous examples also disporve this notion that multiparty democracies always fall into gridlock and dictatorship. Austria, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the UK and Philippines all have well functioning multiparty democracies and are not at great risk (if any risk) for dictatorship.
The Con cites Donald Trump as a reason for why there is a risk of dictatorship. Whether or not Donald Trump wants to effectivley abolish democracy is a moot point, as if Donald Trump were to participate in a General election debate, it would in all liklihood be as the Republican Candidate, not as an Independent. Seeing as Trump ruled out a independent run in September, when he signed a loyalty pledge to the Republican Party, and he reiterated this point in December. Therefore this argument lacks any relevence in this debate.

http://fcit.usf.edu...
http://www.cnn.com...

New Arguments
Contention 3: Third Parties Vital to National Discourse, Exclusion Damages Discourse
Third Parties have consistently played a vital role in introducing issues into the national discourse. The Populists of the 1890s brought forward the issue of bi-metalism and the rise of monopolies. The Socialists introduced labour unions, the Free Soil Party were the first major political force dedicated to abolishing slavery, the Green Party introduced issues like Climate Change and corporate influence in government. There are numorous examples of this. By excluding candidates from debates, we prevent them from gaining a platform to introduce the issues that the Democrats and Republicans do not address. The major parties are in agreement on many issues, and by allowing differing opinions, it allows issues that were prevously a concensus become openly discussed and debated.
http://www.pbs.org...
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...

Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BrendanD19

Pro

Seeing as the con has forfeited this round, I shall extend all of my arguments and await responses
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BrendanD19

Pro

Again noting that the con has forfeited, I extend my arguments from previous rounds. I would like to further note that the Con has had the chance to respond, and was online durring the period in which he could post his argument.
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
BrendanD19AriesxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct immediately goes to Pro due to Con's forfeiture. I am tempted to give sources to Pro due to his greatly superior quality and quantity of sources and refrain from doing so only because it is not quite a disparity to merit points. Spelling/grammar to neither as neither have any great number of errors. I give arguments to Pro for two main reasons. First, Pro successfully rebuts the arguments made by Con, being that adding third party candidates to debates is impractical and its previously failure in other countries, namely Nazis Germany. Pro does this by presenting that only eligible third parties who receive the required number of electoral votes for government support would be in debates(should have been stated in original argument though)and the main contributing factors to Nazis Germany not being associated with a third party, or multiple party, system. Second reason I vote for pro is he presents new arguments that are not rebutted and so stand.