What do the Candidates need to do in the Debates?

[mddem2004]

We very well could have, once the Republican post convention bump settles down, an even race no different than we've had for months.

What do you feel the candidates need to do in the debates with this polarized 50-50 country to break open this race???

[John Dibble]

Let some major third-party candidates in, but since they're afraid that one might 'steal' votes from them they won't.

[A18]

So why don't the third parties throw all their weight behind 'approval voting rights? That would give people a real choice.

No one (or close to no one) wants to vote for a third party for obvious reasons. A guy who 80% of the country hates shouldn't get elected just because 20% beat the other eight candidates' 10%.

[John Dibble]

So why don't the third parties throw all their weight behind 'approval voting rights? That would give people a real choice.

No one (or close to no one) wants to vote for a third party for obvious reasons. A guy who 80% of the country hates shouldn't get elected just because 20% beat the other eight candidates' 10%.

You assume that 80%(more like 40%, as only half the country bothers to vote) of the country would 'hate' the guy who won just because they didn't vote for him - they could like him, but they could just have preferred another guy and thus voted for him. Of course, also by your logic, we could say someone who gets elected with 47% of the vote shouldn't get in because 53% hate him. Also, need I remind you that there are many countries with multiple major parties. Also, I would remind you few people vote for third parties because few people ever hear of the third parties or know what they are about.

[PBrunsel]

Let some major third-party candidates in, but since they're afraid that one might 'steal' votes from them they won't.

I think they should let Badnarik or Peroutka debate. The problem is either of those two could beat the major party candidates in a debate.

[John Dibble]

Let some major third-party candidates in, but since they're afraid that one might 'steal' votes from them they won't.

I think they should let Badnarik or Peroutka debate. The problem is either of those two could beat the major party candidates in a debate.

Exactly. It would encourage the two major parties to field better candidates in the future, too.

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

Let some major third-party candidates in, but since they're afraid that one might 'steal' votes from them they won't.

I think they should let Badnarik or Peroutka debate. The problem is either of those two could beat the major party candidates in a debate.

Exactly. It would encourage the two major parties to field better candidates in the future, too.

I watched a thing about Nader on CNN. Although I disagree with his big government ideas a lot of his consumer protection and little man running for office ideas are right on.

[Lunar]

I watched a thing about Nader on CNN. Although I disagree with his big government ideas a lot of his consumer protection and little man running for office ideas are right on.

He's not QUITE a little man and I thought you fundamentally disagreed with the use of governmental regulations to stop exploitation and instead preferred the free market to keep the corporations in check?

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

I watched a thing about Nader on CNN. Although I disagree with his big government ideas a lot of his consumer protection and little man running for office ideas are right on.

He's not QUITE a little man and I thought you fundamentally disagreed with the use of governmental regulations to stop exploitation and instead preferred the free market to keep the corporations in check?

I have to agree with his arguments against the auto industry. Cars were dangerous in the 50s & 60s.

[A18]

So why don't the third parties throw all their weight behind 'approval voting rights? That would give people a real choice.

No one (or close to no one) wants to vote for a third party for obvious reasons. A guy who 80% of the country hates shouldn't get elected just because 20% beat the other eight candidates' 10%.

You assume that 80%(more like 40%, as only half the country bothers to vote) of the country would 'hate' the guy who won just because they didn't vote for him - they could like him, but they could just have preferred another guy and thus voted for him. Of course, also by your logic, we could say someone who gets elected with 47% of the vote shouldn't get in because 53% hate him. Also, need I remind you that there are many countries with multiple major parties. Also, I would remind you few people vote for third parties because few people ever hear of the third parties or know what they are about.

I was giving a hypothetical situation where 80% of the electorate hated him.

But yes, let's say 48% for Guy1, 47% for Guy2, and 5% for Guy3.

Let's say 4% voted for Guy3 but hated Guy1 and would have prefered Guy2.

It starts getting really screwy. Everyone should be able to put the candidates they approve of ahead and leave those that don't approve on him behind. And if you wanted to, you could still just vote for one candidate, so all it gives people is more options.

[MODU]

What do they need to do in the debates?

Talk specifics.  Enough of these "I can do better than ____" lines.  I want to hear:

Candidate A:  My plan will decrease fuel tax by 2 cents a gallon since we will use a less expensive striping paint on the Interstates by switching to this provider instead.

Candidate B:  My plan will decrease fuel tax by 5 cents by increasing auto emmissions across the country by requiring all states to burn CA gas mixtures.

Things along those lines.