Presidential Debates Petition

[??????????]

My view is that if candidates are serious, then they should be taken seriously. I disagree with the 15% restriction, though I do agree with the restriction that a candidate must have ballot access for enough states to theoretically win the election.

Who knows - a good independent or third party candidate could win if they did well enough in a debate. Debates are supposed to help the public understand what their potential candidates stand for - why restrict them to understanding only two? If we lifted the 15% restriction we might add somewhere in the realm of 2-4 candidates to the debate, not allowing every single third party and independent to the debate(I both laugh and shudder at the thought of the Prohibition Party participating in a debate), just the serious ones.

Until a third party candidate starts doing national advertising has a NATIONALLY televised convention (CSpan does NOT count) and they participate in the debates their chances of winning remain below 1%.

[??????????]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

That's why I support the removal of the winner take all system and think we should move to a Maine/Nebraska system.

[??????????]

The only way a candidate should be involved in the debates is if they can get on the ballot in all 50 states.  Otherwise they are just wasting our time.

Or until they run nationally telivised ads or have a national convention or actually go around the nation having rallies and on and on.

[??????????]

The system in inherently rigged against third-parties.  Winner-takes-all, etc. prevent the continual existance of any strong third party.

The vast majority of the people want a choice between the main two parties.  If every question has to be answered by the Alaskan Independance Party and the Socialist Workers Party, then we'll only hear from the main two about 1/5 as much, if we're lucky.

Thus I will not sign.

Winner take all should be eliminated.

[??????????]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

That's why I support the removal of the winner take all system and think we should move to a Maine/Nebraska system.

That plan just helps the Republicans by exaggerating the already disproportionate strength of the small states...I'm more referring to adopting preferential voting or proportional representation.

How do you figure? I believe Gore would have won if you broke it down by CDs. Lets keep it constitutional as well.

[??????????]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

That's why I support the removal of the winner take all system and think we should move to a Maine/Nebraska system.

That plan just helps the Republicans by exaggerating the already disproportionate strength of the small states...I'm more referring to adopting preferential voting or proportional representation.

How do you figure? I believe Gore would have won if you broke it down by CDs. Lets keep it constitutional as well.

Gore and Bush won just about an equal number of congressional districts (I'm not sure of the exact number, but it was VERY close).  However, when you tack on the 2 bonus EVs for winning statewide, Bush would win by 18 EVs, because he won 30 states to Gore's 21.  SO Bush would have won by a much greater EV margin than he actually did.

Also, the Nebraska system would put too much control in the hands of partisan state legislatures...they would now not only be gerrymandering the Congress, but the Presidential election as well.  How much MORE contentious would DeLay's Texas redistricting have been if it also gave Bush another 5 EVs in addition to its effect on Congress?

Under that system I would eliminate the bonus. Forgot to mention it.

[??????????]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

That's why I support the removal of the winner take all system and think we should move to a Maine/Nebraska system.

That plan just helps the Republicans by exaggerating the already disproportionate strength of the small states...I'm more referring to adopting preferential voting or proportional representation.

How do you figure? I believe Gore would have won if you broke it down by CDs. Lets keep it constitutional as well.

Gore and Bush won just about an equal number of congressional districts (I'm not sure of the exact number, but it was VERY close).  However, when you tack on the 2 bonus EVs for winning statewide, Bush would win by 18 EVs, because he won 30 states to Gore's 21.  SO Bush would have won by a much greater EV margin than he actually did.

Also, the Nebraska system would put too much control in the hands of partisan state legislatures...they would now not only be gerrymandering the Congress, but the Presidential election as well.  How much MORE contentious would DeLay's Texas redistricting have been if it also gave Bush another 5 EVs in addition to its effect on Congress?

Under that system I would eliminate the bonus. Forgot to mention it.

This might be more fair than our existing system then...although it would be much better if we have non-partisan redstricting nationwide.

Did the EV Bonus exist in the original plans for electing a president?

[??????????]

Like when you're in the realestate market it's:

Location
Location
Locaton

When you are running for President it's

Tv
Tv
Tv

[??????????]

All the candidates should be on the same standard.

Look everyone needs to do the following: pretend you are backing a candidate at 1% in the polls then pretend you are backing a candidate at 55% in the polls.  Figure out if you would advocate a different debate style based on how it benefits you and then come up with the best system based on BOTH perspectives.

Of course Democrats and Republicans want to keep Bush and Kerry the two main candidates.  This is just like how in dictatorships and one-party states nobody wants top give the opposition any exposure.

The Democratic debates go down with 9 candidates who all agree on abortion, taxes, Bush, gays, the environment and socialized medicine.  They have largely personality differences and somehow they still find plenty to debate and the main candidates get more face time than others.


Stop trying to protect your own parties and candidates and try to look objectively at what's best.

Like I've said before. I have no problem with third party candidates. But they actually have to TRY and actively win. I hope a third party candidate can change things. But until they lay their stubborness to the side it will NEVER[/u] happen.

[??????????]

What stubbornness?  How are they not trying?  What part of getting on 51 ballots is not trying?

Taking federal money, running tv ads, holding a convention on REAL national TV (CSpan doesn't count).

[??????????]

What stubbornness?  How are they not trying?  What part of getting on 51 ballots is not trying?

Taking federal money, running tv ads, holding a convention on REAL national TV (CSpan doesn't count).

If the Libertarians EVER started taking federal money, I would leave them, or the candidate would be kicked out of the party. They stick with their principles, that's why I like them, can't always say the same. Both the Democrats and the Republicans could easily run their conventions and campaigns without federal assistance. Bush ran his campaign with none in 2000. Also, even with federal funds, third parties don't get enough exposure in the media to raise much money - campaigning would still be very difficult. Doing all those things are expensive, and until these parties get some sort of mass exposure(debates probably being the cheapest, and most effective way) I don't see them having the fundraising ability required. Until then, they can only try for political efficacy by affecting election outcomes like Nader did in 2000, and look at the attention it got him, he still can't win but he's in all the polls. Imagine if he actually had some better ideas(more towards center perhaps) and ballot access in every state, how well could he be doing?

Then whats the difference between your guy and the following :

George Wallace
John Anderson
Strom Thurmond
Ross Perot

All of these guys either won electoral votes or got a high vote for them. What's different? TV Ads DO make a difference. Oh and BTW if your guy actually did go on TV and on ADS and ruffle some feathers maybe he would get noticed. Heck, I guess we always need someone out there rooting for the underdog.

[??????????]

I never said they couldn't put TV adds up, I just said they can't take federal money. It goes against libertarian principles to do so. If they want to put tv adds on, I'm all for it, so long as they do it only with money donated from people and not the federal government. It ticks me off that my tax dollars can end up supporting candidates and conventions for parties that I don't like or support.

Unions do the same thing. Hope you're not in one of those. But that's O/T. Take the federal money. Win and then change it from within. Use the system to your advantage!

[??????????]

Nope, not in a union, they have a tendency to get greedy.

While it may be easier to take the funds, principles dictate we shouldn't. The ends don't always justified the means.

I would use the system as it is and then try to change it from the inside. That's if I ran for office.

[??????????]

Also, I fail to see how letting 'no-chance' candidates debate(you know, they might actually have a chance if they were let into the debates) is not in the best interest of the country. Wouldn't the presentation of more than just two sides of the issues be a good thing? If all I hear is A and B, that's all I might think I can choose from, but what if C exists and it's better than both of the others? Getting people to think of alternate solutions is a bad thing?

They are no chance candidates because they have no chance to win enough Electoral Votes  to make any difference.  Even Perot with big bucks and a media frenzy who did get 19 million votes failed to earn a single EV.  He was in the debates because he exceeded 20% in the polls, but he still failed to win a single Electoral Vote.  Minor party candidates will continue to be no chance candidates unless they raise  the money, advertise and compete.

More to the point, since only the major party candidates have a chance to win, it is a distraction and waste of time to give the no chance candidates time that would dilute the voters exposure to the real candidates.

The compromise here is giving the minor party candidates a separate forum to reach the voters that are interested, if they use that exposure to propel themselves above 15% in the polls, then let them into the debates, but they need to prove they actually might have a chance, rather than a theoretical chance

I agree with this. Although I believe Perot would have won if he hadn't dropped out.

[??????????]

My view - it's a waste of time for me to even watch the debates. There's two candidates, their positions are already known to me, and I've already heard arguments on both sides.

In the 200 debates, there were about 26 million less viewers of the debates. I wonder why? I expect the same this year. I know what candidates A and B stand for, so why bother watching them reiterate what I already know? However, if candidates C and D were available, I might want to watch.

Also, electoral votes - you do not need a single electoral vote to affect the outcome of an election, I think Nader made this clear in 2000.

Not everyone is into politics like us mind you. A lot of people want to watch the debates to settle them once and for all.