Presidential Debates Petition

[John Dibble]

I would like to ask the people here to sign this online petition:

http://opendebates.org/yourrole/petition/

It is to open the presidential debates to popular independent and third party candidates.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

I believe Lincoln also won without being on the ballot in any of the southern states at that time.

Also - a proportional representation system: regardless of the fact that it would allow third parties to come to power, I am actually against this system. Yes, the system is good for third parties, but it also encourages extremists to run, and it was a system like that that allowed the Nazis to rise to power in Germany(they eventually got to 30% control, and just took off from there). The winner-take all system does indeed encourage only two major parties, but I think done right it could handle four parties(Republicans - conservative all around, Democrats - liberal all around, Libertarians - fiscal conservatives social liberals, and something else - fiscal liberals social conservatives[Catholics tended to vote Democrat until the abortion issue, so they'd like that kind of party]). Areas tend to be socially similar, but fiscally people are more likely to want different things, so two parties would dominate only in certain areas.

Anyways, to the person who asked, I'm 20 - young, ideological, and foolishly optimistic. I also don't take much stock in the "waste of a vote" idea, if all the people who actually wanted to vote for a third party "wasted" their vote, it would actually have an effect. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.

[John Dibble]

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!

[John Dibble]

I would be fine with either of the two compromises presented:

1. Allow candidates in based on ballot access for the first debate, and add the 15% restriction back on for the second debate. I would prefer this one. Also, the first debate could go on a bit longer to compensate for the extra participants.

2. Have a follow up debate, and let the candidates in the second debate if they rise in the polls. I don't like this one as much though, because people wouldn't really watch the follow up debate, at least not as much as the main debate. To balance this, the 15% restriction would have to be changed to somewhere in the 5-10% range.

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?

[John Dibble]

How about this:

3 Big Debates (Bush v Kerry)

3 Small Debates (Badnarik v Nader v Peroutka)

Still has the problem of people not watching the small debates. Have the first debate open to candidates with enough ballot access to theoretically win the election. For the second debate, add a restriction for 7.5% in the polls. Move the vice presidential debate to after the second debate rather than the first. For the third debate, 15% in the polls. Progressively give attention to winning candidates, so that everyone gets attention, but the ones that have a chance will get more.

[John Dibble]

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?

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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 2000 debates, there were about 26 million less viewers of the debates as compared to 1992. 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.

[John Dibble]

I believe Lincoln also won without being on the ballot in any of the southern states at that time.

Also - a proportional representation system: regardless of the fact that it would allow third parties to come to power, I am actually against this system. Yes, the system is good for third parties, but it also encourages extremists to run, and it was a system like that that allowed the Nazis to rise to power in Germany(they eventually got to 30% control, and just took off from there). The winner-take all system does indeed encourage only two major parties, but I think done right it could handle four parties(Republicans - conservative all around, Democrats - liberal all around, Libertarians - fiscal conservatives social liberals, and something else - fiscal liberals social conservatives[Catholics tended to vote Democrat until the abortion issue, so they'd like that kind of party]). Areas tend to be socially similar, but fiscally people are more likely to want different things, so two parties would dominate only in certain areas.

Anyways, to the person who asked, I'm 20 - young, ideological, and foolishly optimistic. I also don't take much stock in the "waste of a vote" idea, if all the people who actually wanted to vote for a third party "wasted" their vote, it would actually have an effect. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.

And, if you vote for the lesser of 3 or 4 evils, it's still evil, too.

That's also true, which is why I don't vote for the Constitution Party, Socialist Party, Prohibition Party(actually, they might be the most evil ). I vote Libertarian, because I don't think they're evil, a bit eccentric at times perhaps, but not evil. I don't think Kerry or Bush are evil either, just not the best guys for the job really.