Presidential Debates Petition

[MODU]

I do not do online petitions, but I am for opening the debates to 3rd party candidates that are on enough state ballots that would actually give them a shot at winning the election (has to be on at least 40 state ballots).  All these candidates that are on 2 or 3 ballots need not ask to attend.

[MODU]

Not sure how old you are, John, but watching the rounds when Perot, Bush, and Clinton were all on the stage was something else.  You had two candidates who knew the other party's playbook pretty well, then you had this wealthy G-man/business man with a squeeky voice and big ears steal their limelight.  I'm not sure exactly how "well" he did in those debates, but he sure did force Bush and Clinton to address issues they were not prepared for, and they showed it.

---

Found a good quote regarding Perot and his place in the debates:

MR. GERGEN: I was wrong about Perot and Mark was right about Perot being good for the country to be in the debates. I thought he'd be a diversion. And I -- and I -- Mark said it would be better for the country. I think in the end it was better.

MR. LEHRER: Just because he's always there saying, hey --

MR. GERGEN: Yeah. Mark is right.

MR. SHIELDS: And is the campaign's conscience. I mean, I think he is this campaign's conscience.

MS. CHAVEZ: Not to mention he's the most entertaining --

MR. SHIELDS: He is. He is. That's right. He's the only that appeared to be having fun.

MR. LEHRER: But he keeps saying, you know, those other two guys, you know, I'm here and I'm different than both of those other two guys.

MS. CHAVEZ: But he's right about that. And I think that is why he's touching a cord with certain people in the electorate is he is the only one who has not been part of the Washington scene or the government scene. And I think there is a sense that you need someone like a Ross Perot to shake things up.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/newshour/92_3rdprez_analysis.html

[MODU]

We only hurt ourselves with a two-party dominant system.  The society isn't either A or B.  This is why we have such a divided nation these days.  We've forced people to pick a side rather than encouraged them to vote what they feel is best.  

I think the reason why third party contenders (outside of Perot) poll so low is not only due to blind-partisanship, but no one thinks a third party candidate could be successful.  We need to change that mindset in our society if we ever expect to grow and mature.

[MODU]

NewFederalist . . . what does the Orange indicate (sorry for being off topic)?

[MODU]

NewFederalist . . . what does the Orange indicate (sorry for being off topic)?

Other party (not specified)

Thanks.    You're the first I've seen with it.

[MODU]

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.

That might be too strict of a criteria, since we've seen how hard it is for some to make it onto states ballots.  That's why I would recommend 40 (maybe 45) states as a minimum.  You can win the election with that many states in a 3-way match up, even if you lose NY and CA.

[MODU]

John Dibble- You are right on target! The only truly wasted vote is the vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm not sure where I saw that but I believe it is true.

Vote Cthulu in 2004: Why vote for the lesser of 2 evils?

Why not? I mean, both Kerry and Bush drive people insane and frothing at the mouth at the mere sight of them(depending on whether you're left or right), that way both sides can be nuts!

Just as I did in 2000, I'll do the same in 2004.  Gore would have lost to any Republican candidate in 2000.  The only reason why it was close was because Bush came off as a bumbling idiot (he's had some decent coaching over the last 3 years).  In 2004, it's a bit different.  On one hand, you have people complaining that Bush hasn't done his job as President, but on the other, you have Kerry who hasn't done his job as Senator.  Which do you choose?  Placed on a scale, Bush wins again.

Maybe in 2008 we'll actually have candidates WORTH all the hype for the elections.