WHY ARE MINORITY PARTIES EXCLUDED FROM PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[ronburgundy]

That answers your own question. Stein would be bringing up each of those issues if she was fully in a debate with these two, and she'd bring them up even if there was no question about them from the moderator.

How about allowing the minority parties into the debate but allocating questions/time to them based on their support? If you are polling very low you only get to show up for a few minutes, basically as a guest speaker in the debate for your primary issue, and then you're not there for the next segment?

A proposal that no one will agree to.

People can be convinced. It is a possible compromise. If you can't have full participation with minority parties, then this is a baby step.

You could keep the same corrupt failing system you have now, or you could make moves to change it, if not all at once, then a little at a time, through small steps like this.

So long as the debates are created and funded by the parties themselves, the 2 major parties have nothing to gain and can only lose by allowing 3rd parties polling at only a few %. The only solution is, publicly funded debates, but even then there should be requirements to participate based upon existing support in polls. Although a simple absolute minimum makes less sense than a maximum relative difference between the candidates. For example, if there were 4 candidates polling at 20%, 20%, 8%, 8%, with 44% un-decided, then it would make more sense for them all to participate than if it was 40%, 35%, 10%, and 10% with only 5% undecided.

Alternatively, maybe instead of using a simple poll of support, publicly funded survey asks registered voters which 2 or 3 candidates they want to see participate. Each candidate that gets X % of votes participates. The reason to limit each voter to 2-3 choices is that too many people will just say "all of them" regardless of whether some have near zero people likely to vote for them and that turns it into a circus.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So long as the debates are created and funded by the parties themselves...

They are moderated and aired by television networks. The participants are controlled by a bi-partisan (Democrat-Republican) debate commission.

For example, if there were 4 candidates polling at 20%, 20%, 8%, 8%, with 44% un-decided, then it would make more sense for them all to participate than if it was 40%, 35%, 10%, and 10% with only 5% undecided.

The largest segment of likely voters are independents, not either D or R. Someone earlier posted a graph. And out of unlikely voters, the % is around 40% with one reason being that they don't like the D and R candidates. Why don't you include independents, if not unlikely voters due to D & R, in your analysis?

 

[blastula]

Most independents aren't really independent.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm willing to bet that if the independents actually cared, they could make it happen.

The problem with independents is that they aren't organized, because they don't care. If they cared, they'd be a party. And they'd be able to get into the debates.

Why would the independents organize and lobby on behalf of the Libertarians and Greens? They are equally independent of those parties.

If you don't care enough to get involved, it's silly to complain about being ignored. Most independents don't.

 

[ronburgundy]

They are moderated and aired by television networks. The participants are controlled by a bi-partisan (Democrat-Republican) debate commission.

The commission chooses who the networks and moderators will be, so they control that too, just like a corporation chooses which network will air its ads. The moderator only gets to have any influence on the event because the RNC and DNC choose to give them that discretion in order make the events seem more legit to the public. They could decide to completely dictate everything the moderator says and asks, but it would be a bad PR move, so they don't.
Besides, the networks are also private companies, so it is perfectly legal arrangement for private entities like the RNC and DNC to work with another private entity to decide the who, what, where, and when of such debates, and no one else should be able to force their way into it.

The public can try to create debates that are more publicly controlled and then pressure the RNC and DNC to participate, but that is independent of any other privately controlled debates those parties wish to arrange amongst themselves. Nothing short of a total shredding of the first amendment would prevent this.

For example, if there were 4 candidates polling at 20%, 20%, 8%, 8%, with 44% un-decided, then it would make more sense for them all to participate than if it was 40%, 35%, 10%, and 10% with only 5% undecided.

The largest segment of likely voters are independents, not either D or R. Someone earlier posted a graph. And out of unlikely voters, the % is around 40% with one reason being that they don't like the D and R candidates. Why don't you include independents, if not unlikely voters due to D & R, in your analysis?

Because "independent" is a vacuous catchall that means nothing more than the person is not registered to either the D or R parties. It is a category that includes various people who do not agree with each other about anything, let alone a particular candidate, and people who don't like any candidate including any independent, and people who actually do like either the D or R candidate most but simply are not committed to the D or R party in general. Given that being an "independent" voter has zero relationship to whether you like any third party candidate, let alone which one, it has no bearing on the issue. What matters is how many people support a specific third party (including no party) candidate.

 

[blastula]

The vast majority of self-identified independents consistently vote for D or R. The identification is just about self-branding. They're "closet partisans."

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's a paranoia at the thought of an outsider being allowed to exercise a right of free speech.

Nobody infringed anybody's right to free speech.

Nader's freedom to speak doesn't entail freedom to use someone else's platform.

In a democracy the platform is accessible to all who are standing in a considerable number of states and not just the status quo who have decided otherwise.

 

[bilby]

Nobody infringed anybody's right to free speech.

Nader's freedom to speak doesn't entail freedom to use someone else's platform.

In a democracy the platform is accessible to all who are standing in a considerable number of states and not just the status quo who have decided otherwise.

Who cares what might happen in a democracy? We are talking about the USA - please try to stay on topic.

In the USA, the platform belongs to the person who paid for it. If you want a share of a platform, you either have to persuade its owner to let you join; Or you have to pay for your own.

Unless you own a TV station, no TV station has any duty nor obligation to give you a single second of air-time.

If you want to talk to people in public places, than nobody will stop you - because you have freedom of speech (they are under no obligation to listen to you though). You do NOT have freedom of TV exposure. You do NOT have a right to be broadcast, nor do you have a right to an audience. Those things are in the gift of their owners, and the owners can do with them as they please.

If you invited Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to come over to your house and chat to you about their policies, then it would be up to them to decide whether or not to come. But even if they both took up your invitation, that would NOT entitle Gary Johnson, Laurence Kotlikoff, Jill Stein, or any other presidential candidate to come to your house uninvited, and demand to put their case to you. Its YOUR house, and you get to choose who is invited. The same is true for the debates - they belong to the TV networks, and they get to pick their invitees.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In a democracy the platform is accessible to all who are standing in a considerable number of states and not just the status quo who have decided otherwise.

Who cares what might happen in a democracy? We are talking about the USA - please try to stay on topic.

In the USA, the platform belongs to the person who paid for it. If you want a share of a platform, you either have to persuade its owner to let you join; Or you have to pay for your own.

Unless you own a TV station, no TV station has any duty nor obligation to give you a single second of air-time.

If you want to talk to people in public places, than nobody will stop you - because you have freedom of speech (they are under no obligation to listen to you though). You do NOT have freedom of TV exposure. You do NOT have a right to be broadcast, nor do you have a right to an audience. Those things are in the gift of their owners, and the owners can do with them as they please.

If you invited Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to come over to your house and chat to you about their policies, then it would be up to them to decide whether or not to come. But even if they both took up your invitation, that would NOT entitle Gary Johnson, Laurence Kotlikoff, Jill Stein, or any other presidential candidate to come to your house uninvited, and demand to put their case to you. Its YOUR house, and you get to choose who is invited. The same is true for the debates - they belong to the TV networks, and they get to pick their invitees.

It's called media monopoly. The last paragraph does not relate because this is regarding what they see on TV. They can always switch the TV off to exclude the other person's viewpoint. If newsmedia charges politicans to speak then only money talks.

 

[bilby]

Who cares what might happen in a democracy? We are talking about the USA - please try to stay on topic.

In the USA, the platform belongs to the person who paid for it. If you want a share of a platform, you either have to persuade its owner to let you join; Or you have to pay for your own.

Unless you own a TV station, no TV station has any duty nor obligation to give you a single second of air-time.

If you want to talk to people in public places, than nobody will stop you - because you have freedom of speech (they are under no obligation to listen to you though). You do NOT have freedom of TV exposure. You do NOT have a right to be broadcast, nor do you have a right to an audience. Those things are in the gift of their owners, and the owners can do with them as they please.

If you invited Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to come over to your house and chat to you about their policies, then it would be up to them to decide whether or not to come. But even if they both took up your invitation, that would NOT entitle Gary Johnson, Laurence Kotlikoff, Jill Stein, or any other presidential candidate to come to your house uninvited, and demand to put their case to you. Its YOUR house, and you get to choose who is invited. The same is true for the debates - they belong to the TV networks, and they get to pick their invitees.

It's called media monopoly.

You can call it whatever you like.

The last paragraph does not relate because this is regarding what they see on TV.

What, you think that TV is some kind of nebulous public good, that everyone is entitled to use? TV stations are private property. They have owners, and the owners decide what gets broadcast.

They can always switch the TV off to exclude the other person's viewpoint.

Indeed. And the broadcasters can always refuse to broadcast whatever viewpoints they wish to exclude. Of course, they can't prevent their competitors from broadcasting it instead, and making oodles of money - so if they can make money from it, they are likely to broadcast it (and if not, not).

If newsmedia charges politicans to speak then only money talks.

Again, we are discussing the USA. If you don't think that money talks in the USA, particularly in the political system, then you are FAR too poorly informed to have any business discussing the topic at all.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Alternatively, maybe instead of using a simple poll of support, publicly funded survey asks registered voters which 2 or 3 candidates they want to see participate. Each candidate that gets X % of votes participates. The reason to limit each voter to 2-3 choices is that too many people will just say "all of them" regardless of whether some have near zero people likely to vote for them and that turns it into a circus.

I like it. And yes, they should be publicly funded with rules against big campaign financial contributions, especially ones from unknown sources.

 

[untermensche]

If the mere presence of a presidential candidate, sitting and watching in another room, at a presidential debate is now some "disruption" then we have entered the twilight zone.

What purpose would be served to anyone, including Nader, by having him there in another room? It is just a completely idiotic idea in the first place, so they were right to reject it.

You don't get to ask that in a free nation.

He had a ticket. A court determined his rights were violated.

What more do you need to condemn the petty tyranny?

 

[bilby]

What purpose would be served to anyone, including Nader, by having him there in another room? It is just a completely idiotic idea in the first place, so they were right to reject it.

You don't get to ask that in a free nation.

Clearly you struggle to grasp the meaning of the word 'free'.

 

[arkirk]

You don't get to ask that in a free nation.

Clearly you struggle to grasp the meaning of the word 'free'.

What neither of your twerps understand is that our presidential debates are run by a private entity. They used to be run by the League of Woman Voters, but the Presidential Debate Commission is actually a private entity composed of only Republican and Democrat members and they took the debate away from the League of Woman Voters after the league allowed Perot to debate. This Republicrats simply would not debate in their forums anymore and siezed the process. So if you think it is cool that somebody in a backroom somewhere decides who you will know about and actually know who is running and qualified on the ballot, then just sit back and enjoy your cool. Things are going to be getting considerably hotter. I have hears so much stupidity on this subject. Why do people want to remain ignorant of their options? They actually don't. They are being denied a full range of political opinion and never hear many serious social issues discussed in these hearings. What you don't know and what you don't understand CAN HURT YOU. Mr. Bilby is completely clueless that there may be any way to look at governance except as an aid to exploitation of natural resources and to keep the rabble down.

 

[bilby]

Clearly you struggle to grasp the meaning of the word 'free'.

What neither of your twerps understand is that our presidential debates are run by a private entity. They used to be run by the League of Woman Voters, but the Presidential Debate Commission is actually a private entity composed of only Republican and Democrat members and they took the debate away from the League of Woman Voters after the league allowed Perot to debate. This Republicrats simply would not debate in their forums anymore and siezed the process. So if you think it is cool that somebody in a backroom somewhere decides who you will know about and actually know who is running and qualified on the ballot, then just sit back and enjoy your cool. Things are going to be getting considerably hotter. I have hears so much stupidity on this subject. Why do people want to remain ignorant of their options? They actually don't. They are being denied a full range of political opinion and never hear many serious social issues discussed in these hearings. What you don't know and what you don't understand CAN HURT YOU. Mr. Bilby is completely clueless that there may be any way to look at governance except as an aid to exploitation of natural resources and to keep the rabble down.

You need to learn to read, if that's the impression you are getting from my posts.

Stop insulting me, and start reading what I write; you will find that it bears no resemblance to your mischaracterising and childish rants.

Of course I understand that the debates are run by a private entity - that's EXACTLY what I have been saying for fucks sake. Either read my posts, or don't bother responding to them.

Private entities have the right to deny their resources to fringe candidates. Candidates have no right to demand access to those resources. It's a stupid system, but it's what you have - and it's a damn sight more American than apple pie.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Third party candidates can set up their own "debate response" and put it on the net. So they could set up a small studio and have a "moderator" ask the same questions Trump and Clinton got asked, and give their own answers. That none of them ever do anything like this shows a lack of imagination and initiative.

 

[untermensche]

You don't get to ask that in a free nation.

Clearly you struggle to grasp the meaning of the word 'free'.

You are the one defending throwing somebody out illegally.

You are the one that thinks presidential candidates need some kind of special dispensation to merely watch the debates.

In another room.

You are on the side of petty tyranny here.

 

[Terrell]

Third party candidates can set up their own "debate response" and put it on the net. So they could set up a small studio and have a "moderator" ask the same questions Trump and Clinton got asked, and give their own answers. That none of them ever do anything like this shows a lack of imagination and initiative.

There was one in 2012 but I don't think it was on any of the major networks.

 

[bilby]

Clearly you struggle to grasp the meaning of the word 'free'.

You are the one defending throwing somebody out illegally.

You are the one that thinks presidential candidates need some kind of special dispensation to merely watch the debates.

In another room.

You are on the side of petty tyranny here.

You don't get to say that in a free country.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If the mere presence of a presidential candidate, sitting and watching in another room, at a presidential debate is now some "disruption" then we have entered the twilight zone.

What purpose would be served to anyone, including Nader, by having him there in another room?

That question makes no sense in a free country.