Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should 3rd party candidates be in debates?

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:04:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

When it comes to presidential elections 3rd parties would muddle the debate. 4 people would make for either a too long debate or too short for each individual. There are too many flaws with winner take all/first past the post voting systems.

But the biggest problem to US elections is all Congressional seats are winner takes all. 3rd parties stand no chance. I would suggest we move to a more proportional/alternative voting system. as shown in the videos.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 9:37:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

More publicity would indeed give third parties a greater chance. This is simply logical: if people don't know they exist, they can't support them.

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Smaller parties generally splinter from bigger parties due to disagreements over ideology. If the Democrats lose, they could splinter along the Hillary/Bernie line. The Republicans probably won't splinter, but will just scuff Trump under the rug.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

Balance creates stagnation. A stagnant political system, like stagnant water, breeds all kinds of nasties.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

Ask it another way: how insignificant does a candidate have to be before we stop extending invites? If Billy Redneck puts his name in the hat but makes zero effort to publicize himself, should we invite him to the debate?

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

Indeed.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 10:59:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Considering the he first presidential debate didn't occur until 1960, it seems the people have bought into a ratings contrived contraption.

Before the obvious contention someone posts about technology, radio penetration had already occurred 30 years prior.

As just another point of evidence from last night, what was one benefit-item learned that hadn't already been discussed ad nauseum? It was a dog and pony show, no more, no less.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:05:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The two party system mixed with the fact that the candidate we will ultimately select is the one the people with the money decide we are going to elect is the problem. How do we get more people to be legitimate candidates, and get the money out of politics?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 12:25:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 11:05:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The two party system mixed with the fact that the candidate we will ultimately select is the one the people with the money decide we are going to elect is the problem. How do we get more people to be legitimate candidates, and get the money out of politics?

Repeal the 17th amendment
No declaring presidential candidacy until dec 31 the year prior (reducing election cycle to 19 months)

2 quick solutions with the 1st amendment challenges (ex: pacs)
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:42:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 12:25:35 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:05:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The two party system mixed with the fact that the candidate we will ultimately select is the one the people with the money decide we are going to elect is the problem. How do we get more people to be legitimate candidates, and get the money out of politics?

Repeal the 17th amendment

How would that solve anything? The 2 party system infects state government too, and it would just repeat the problems that caused the adoption of the amendmenti n the first place.

No declaring presidential candidacy until dec 31 the year prior (reducing election cycle to 19 months)

So candidates would still everything but declare their candidacy while preparing to run.

2 quick solutions with the 1st amendment challenges (ex: pacs)

lol neither solution effects pacs.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:11:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 3:42:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:25:35 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:05:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The two party system mixed with the fact that the candidate we will ultimately select is the one the people with the money decide we are going to elect is the problem. How do we get more people to be legitimate candidates, and get the money out of politics?

Repeal the 17th amendment

How would that solve anything? The 2 party system infects state government too, and it would just repeat the problems that caused the adoption of the amendmenti n the first place.

No declaring presidential candidacy until dec 31 the year prior (reducing election cycle to 19 months)

So candidates would still everything but declare their candidacy while preparing to run.

2 quick solutions with the 1st amendment challenges (ex: pacs)

lol neither solution effects pacs.

Packs already got ruled as protected by the first.
Being snarky, I guarantee you had to look up what the 17th wS before commenting. I'd ask historically what prompted the passing of the 17th but Google and wiki will give you the highlights. States being influenced internally is vastly better than the federal government unless you like things as they stand with increased centralization like many younger people do.

Reducing presidential election cycles keeps those already holding offensive in their role. Again, if one doesn't see that benefit, explaining is a waste of my time.

Just once it would be nice for intelligentsia such as yourself to offer an actual idea vs some parroted response.

To the individual that mentioned a 6 year ban on joining a lobbyist position, that's an intriguing idea. I hope you expand in greater detail.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:17:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:11:14 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:42:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:25:35 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:05:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The two party system mixed with the fact that the candidate we will ultimately select is the one the people with the money decide we are going to elect is the problem. How do we get more people to be legitimate candidates, and get the money out of politics?

Repeal the 17th amendment

How would that solve anything? The 2 party system infects state government too, and it would just repeat the problems that caused the adoption of the amendmenti n the first place.

No declaring presidential candidacy until dec 31 the year prior (reducing election cycle to 19 months)

So candidates would still everything but declare their candidacy while preparing to run.

2 quick solutions with the 1st amendment challenges (ex: pacs)

lol neither solution effects pacs.

Packs already got ruled as protected by the first.
Being snarky, I guarantee you had to look up what the 17th wS before commenting.

Only as a refresher, I thought it was the governor that chose senators - not state legislatures. it's one of the more obscure amendments that most people don't question, but I've heard the argument for repeal before by far right, states rights, libertarian types.

I'd ask historically what prompted the passing of the 17th but Google and wiki will give you the highlights.

Then you already know why it's a dumb idea.

States being influenced internally is vastly better than the federal government unless you like things as they stand with increased centralization like many younger people do.

How does a popular vote for senators equal the federal government influencing state elections? You're arguing for more power to be centralized in the hands of state legislatures rather than the citizens of those states.

Reducing presidential election cycles keeps those already holding offensive in their role. Again, if one doesn't see that benefit, explaining is a waste of my time.

Wait what? Presidential? Are you talking about the 22nd Amendment? How do you reduce the cycles? The years at which senators and president has always been 6 and 4. Also no, it doesn't prevent them from running. Standing senators can still run for president assuming no state law prohibits it.

Just once it would be nice for intelligentsia such as yourself to offer an actual idea vs some parroted response.

Lol seriously, you idea makes no sense and don't be a retard, look at post #2.

To the individual that mentioned a 6 year ban on joining a lobbyist position, that's an intriguing idea. I hope you expand in greater detail.

Its a measure to counter act the iron triangle. It's fairly simple.
Canuck
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:51:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 6:04:38 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

When it comes to presidential elections 3rd parties would muddle the debate. 4 people would make for either a too long debate or too short for each individual. There are too many flaws with winner take all/first past the post voting systems.

But the biggest problem to US elections is all Congressional seats are winner takes all. 3rd parties stand no chance. I would suggest we move to a more proportional/alternative voting system. as shown in the videos.


I'm not sure how a STV system would work for a presidential election where it is really winner take all, but I want to have it implemented in Canada. Unfortunately the current system here greatly benefits the two parties who are always in power so they typically don't have any desire for electoral reform.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:55:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

http://www.rollcall.com...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:56:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:51:58 PM, Canuck wrote:

I'm not sure how a STV system would work for a presidential election where it is really winner take all, but I want to have it implemented in Canada. Unfortunately the current system here greatly benefits the two parties who are always in power so they typically don't have any desire for electoral reform.

It wouldn't work for the presidential because there can only be one winner. But it would definitely help 3rd parties in the legislature. And yes, electoral reform is certainly hindered by the 2 parties refusing to give up control.
imabench
Posts: 21,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:06:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Currently, third parties are admitted only if they get 15% support in a presidential poll. I think it would be far more interesting if admission into debates were allowed only if third parties held at least 5% of seats in the House of Representatives......

Third party campaigns are one-trick ponies that center themselves entirely around allegedly being better than the other two main options, and only ever set their sights on the presidential elections, rather than House or Senate elections..... If Third parties were allowed to debates based on how many seats they have in the House, it would incentivize them to actually field candidates for lower offices rather then try to derail or hijack elections to satisfy their own narcissistic desires for attention.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TeaPatriot
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 6:06:48 PM, imabench wrote:
Currently, third parties are admitted only if they get 15% support in a presidential poll. I think it would be far more interesting if admission into debates were allowed only if third parties held at least 5% of seats in the House of Representatives......

Third party campaigns are one-trick ponies that center themselves entirely around allegedly being better than the other two main options, and only ever set their sights on the presidential elections, rather than House or Senate elections..... If Third parties were allowed to debates based on how many seats they have in the House, it would incentivize them to actually field candidates for lower offices rather then try to derail or hijack elections to satisfy their own narcissistic desires for attention.

Yeah i could never understand why someone would honestly take points away from candidates who actually could win
Chairman of Economic Forum Recovery
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:43:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:55:50 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

http://www.rollcall.com...

Yes, this relates it to the current setting of American politics. But the question I was asking in the OP, and the concept I focused the discussion on was the concept in general. The linked article argues that Gary Johnson not be put on stage because it might lead to Trump becoming president. Which is a good point, but I was hoping to focus on the concept in general, rather than the specifics of the whats in the news.

Plus, even if it were to be topical this only justifies it in this one instance, and thus not providing justification for any other presidential election.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:46:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 6:04:38 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

When it comes to presidential elections 3rd parties would muddle the debate. 4 people would make for either a too long debate or too short for each individual. There are too many flaws with winner take all/first past the post voting systems.

This is so superficial. The primary debates had like 10 people

But the biggest problem to US elections is all Congressional seats are winner takes all. 3rd parties stand no chance. I would suggest we move to a more proportional/alternative voting system. as shown in the videos.


interesting
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:56:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Evan McMullin should be included in the debates, due to being statistically tied for the lead in a state. That should be the standard: 15% across the country, or polling competitively in one state.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 6:04:38 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

When it comes to presidential elections 3rd parties would muddle the debate. 4 people would make for either a too long debate or too short for each individual. There are too many flaws with winner take all/first past the post voting systems.

But the biggest problem to US elections is all Congressional seats are winner takes all. 3rd parties stand no chance. I would suggest we move to a more proportional/alternative voting system. as shown in the videos.


Hear, hear
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 8:40:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

If they have the ability to win then they should be in the debates.
72% of Americans agree.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 8:42:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

No, other parties should be allowed onto the debates so long as they reach a certain polling standard.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 9:27:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 7:46:13 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/10/2016 6:04:38 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

When it comes to presidential elections 3rd parties would muddle the debate. 4 people would make for either a too long debate or too short for each individual. There are too many flaws with winner take all/first past the post voting systems.

This is so superficial. The primary debates had like 10 people

The GOP primary debates where a joke. Maybe 4 people would be ok for a 2 hour debate, but I doubt the majority of people watching could stand it.

But the biggest problem to US elections is all Congressional seats are winner takes all. 3rd parties stand no chance. I would suggest we move to a more proportional/alternative voting system. as shown in the videos.

interesting
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 5:14:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:27:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:46:13 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/10/2016 6:04:38 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

When it comes to presidential elections 3rd parties would muddle the debate. 4 people would make for either a too long debate or too short for each individual. There are too many flaws with winner take all/first past the post voting systems.

This is so superficial. The primary debates had like 10 people

The GOP primary debates where a joke. Maybe 4 people would be ok for a 2 hour debate, but I doubt the majority of people watching could stand it.

It doesnt really matter, four person debates are possible and efficient. This is such a superficial point in the discussion

But the biggest problem to US elections is all Congressional seats are winner takes all. 3rd parties stand no chance. I would suggest we move to a more proportional/alternative voting system. as shown in the videos.

interesting
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 5:21:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:14:49 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:27:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

The GOP primary debates where a joke. Maybe 4 people would be ok for a 2 hour debate, but I doubt the majority of people watching could stand it.

It doesnt really matter, four person debates are possible and efficient. This is such a superficial point in the discussion

Given the superficiality of the American voter, no it isn't.

But I will concede in the presidential race 2nd transferable vote would be ideal - allowing for a relevant 4 way debate - but no more than 4.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 11:21:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

As someone who studied philosophy once upon a time, I can't help but think of the Helegian Dialectic whenever someone brings up the two-party U.S. political system. According to Hegel, "dialectic" is the method by which human history unfolds; that is to say, history progresses as a dialectical process. The Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner comprises of three dialectical stages of development:

(1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition.

So, with the thought of our two-party political system in mind, I tend to always go back to the Helegian Dialectic and entertain the thought of what the synthesis of these two parties will one day look like. Unfortunately, and to my own horror, it seems that with every day passing these two parties drift further and further apart rather than following the H.D. path of reconciling to form a new proposition (or, more appropriately for this comparison, a new political party).

Every "3rd party" that makes even the faintest of waves in our political spectrum seem to fall short of the task - either falling closer to one side or the other while putting major emphasis on one or only a few issues/positions rather than serving as an umbrella party championing several major points/stances all at once such as what both the Democratic and Republican parties do. They are outlier "extremist" parties at this point in our political evolution here in America. Perhaps this is due solely to us attempting, from our inception, to forge out a path that has never before been taken in human history. Perhaps this is why the Hegelian Dialectic can't be applied, as it's something that can solely be observed in history rather than something that can serve as a model for future events....

Regardless of it all, no, I don't believe 3rd party candidates should be in debates unless they have a realistic base of support before the debates take place. Keyword here being "realistic" which, for me, means having an amount of national support that could actually present a chance of attaining the white-house. In practical terms probably a 20-25% base of support in national polls pre-debate. If that requirement is met, then by all means, debate till thine heart is content.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 12:11:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

No. Disrupting the two party system would result from giving more attention to third parties, which could throw the election to the house of representatives. That would be a most undemocratic outcome.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:46:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 12:11:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

No. Disrupting the two party system would result from giving more attention to third parties, which could throw the election to the house of representatives. That would be a most undemocratic outcome.

That's a good point. Having three people in the running for president would increase the chances of one candidate not getting the majority of electoral votes and then that would happen. Nice.

What if the electoral college was reformed and it was just based off a popular vote? This problem would essentially go away, should third party candidates be let in then?

But even so, is silencing them by not allowing them to participate in debates just? Even if it is for the greater good (preserving democratic election), silencing the opposition is a slippery slope
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:54:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 11:21:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:49:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
The political system has developed into a two party system. If third party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates the way that the Democrats and Republicans are (such as the debate today, it would be Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein) would this significantly change the system? If third party candidates were allowed in debates do you think it would grab enough public attention to be a factor into transitioning out of a two party system? If so, should this be done?

I lean no. I value a two party system because a third party will always develop into the second party's ideology. For example, the Green party is more of a liberal ideology than a conservative one.

Only when the system maintains polar opposite views are things balanced. But still, thats just what I'm thinking off the top of my head. I'm sure other people have more to add to that subject (of whether we ought to have a two party system), and they ought to.

But even if a two party system is superior, does that give justification for excluding third party candidates from debates? It seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic to me, silencing the opposition.

I don't know, its an interesting topic.

As someone who studied philosophy once upon a time, I can't help but think of the Helegian Dialectic whenever someone brings up the two-party U.S. political system. According to Hegel, "dialectic" is the method by which human history unfolds; that is to say, history progresses as a dialectical process. The Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner comprises of three dialectical stages of development:

(1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition.

So, with the thought of our two-party political system in mind, I tend to always go back to the Helegian Dialectic and entertain the thought of what the synthesis of these two parties will one day look like. Unfortunately, and to my own horror, it seems that with every day passing these two parties drift further and further apart rather than following the H.D. path of reconciling to form a new proposition (or, more appropriately for this comparison, a new political party).

Every "3rd party" that makes even the faintest of waves in our political spectrum seem to fall short of the task - either falling closer to one side or the other while putting major emphasis on one or only a few issues/positions rather than serving as an umbrella party championing several major points/stances all at once such as what both the Democratic and Republican parties do. They are outlier "extremist" parties at this point in our political evolution here in America. Perhaps this is due solely to us attempting, from our inception, to forge out a path that has never before been taken in human history. Perhaps this is why the Hegelian Dialectic can't be applied, as it's something that can solely be observed in history rather than something that can serve as a model for future events....

Regardless of it all, no, I don't believe 3rd party candidates should be in debates unless they have a realistic base of support before the debates take place. Keyword here being "realistic" which, for me, means having an amount of national support that could actually present a chance of attaining the white-house. In practical terms probably a 20-25% base of support in national polls pre-debate. If that requirement is met, then by all means, debate till thine heart is content.

This is a very good point. I agree.

Although, two problems. One, I can see how the Green party can be viewed as only focusing on one or two issues (environmentalism) and you are definately right that the other parties merely represent extremist viewpoints. I'm not sure about the libertarian party though. Libertarianism, as the ideology, can definately be applied over a wide range of views just as Republican and Democrat can. Plus, Gary Johnson is polling at like 9 points. I don't know much about the libertarian *party* in particular though, but based on the ideology this wouldn't work.

Secondly, does this issue justify silencing the opposition. If allowing third party candidates to speak their views on a debate stage and thus attract followers and thus disrupt the two party system, you are arguing that we not allow them into the debates for the greater good: of preserving two party system. Yet, does the act of silencing the opposition justify this? And the slippery slope that this opens up, especially in regard to institutionalized politics (Commitee on presidential debates)? Is it worth it?

Also, the Commitee on presidential debates' official website is debates.org which is cool. Just the s is off
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:55:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:21:36 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:14:49 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:27:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

The GOP primary debates where a joke. Maybe 4 people would be ok for a 2 hour debate, but I doubt the majority of people watching could stand it.

It doesnt really matter, four person debates are possible and efficient. This is such a superficial point in the discussion

Given the superficiality of the American voter, no it isn't.

Wtf is this supposed to mean. This makes no sense in regards to my point

But I will concede in the presidential race 2nd transferable vote would be ideal - allowing for a relevant 4 way debate - but no more than 4.

ok...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 7:06:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:11:14 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:42:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:25:35 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 11:05:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The two party system mixed with the fact that the candidate we will ultimately select is the one the people with the money decide we are going to elect is the problem. How do we get more people to be legitimate candidates, and get the money out of politics?

Repeal the 17th amendment

How would that solve anything? The 2 party system infects state government too, and it would just repeat the problems that caused the adoption of the amendmenti n the first place.

No declaring presidential candidacy until dec 31 the year prior (reducing election cycle to 19 months)

So candidates would still everything but declare their candidacy while preparing to run.

2 quick solutions with the 1st amendment challenges (ex: pacs)

lol neither solution effects pacs.

Packs already got ruled as protected by the first.
Being snarky, I guarantee you had to look up what the 17th wS before commenting. I'd ask historically what prompted the passing of the 17th but Google and wiki will give you the highlights. States being influenced internally is vastly better than the federal government unless you like things as they stand with increased centralization like many younger people do.

Reducing presidential election cycles keeps those already holding offensive in their role. Again, if one doesn't see that benefit, explaining is a waste of my time.

Just once it would be nice for intelligentsia such as yourself to offer an actual idea vs some parroted response.

To the individual that mentioned a 6 year ban on joining a lobbyist position, that's an intriguing idea. I hope you expand in greater detail.

Start a new thread if you want a more in depth explanation on repealing the 17th and more importantly reduction of the presidential election cycle. There are many parts to that thought. I was prepping an ETL presentation and never got back to this.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 5:30:41 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 6:55:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:21:36 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:14:49 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:27:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

The GOP primary debates where a joke. Maybe 4 people would be ok for a 2 hour debate, but I doubt the majority of people watching could stand it.

It doesnt really matter, four person debates are possible and efficient. This is such a superficial point in the discussion

Given the superficiality of the American voter, no it isn't.

Wtf is this supposed to mean. This makes no sense in regards to my point

Americans are pretty dumb when it comes to government knowledge, in other words they have a superficial understanding of what they're voting for. [http://www.newsweek.com...] [http://www.washingtonpost.com...] [https://www.ets.org...]

And what was your point?

But I will concede in the presidential race 2nd transferable vote would be ideal - allowing for a relevant 4 way debate - but no more than 4.

ok...