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.

[Ben.]

I will not sign this as third party candidates who face a real prospect of winning an election will always be represented so long as they consecutively poll at 15% or above from a reputable polling agency... witness Perot, Nader does not nor do any other candidates in this election and so I see no reason why the only two credible candidates should not be the only candidates to take part in the presidential debates.

But I do welcome you to the forum and hope you keep posting

[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.

[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.

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

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%.

[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

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

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

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.

[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.

[Rixtex]

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.

Our electoral system mandates no such thing. Democrat and Republican controlled state legislatures have restricted ballot access. They hate the competition.

The Electoral College takes care of plurality outcomes at the national level.

[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.

[millwx]

(I both laugh and shudder at the thought of the Prohibition Party participating in a debate), just the serious ones.

I agree, John.  The problem is, I strongly suspect the Prohibition Party candidates will disagree with your assertion that they are not "serious" candidates.  This is the problem I have with such notions of opening up the debates.  Unless there are some restrictions put on, then it will have to be open to every candidate (Prohibition, Green, Libertarian, Reform, Constitution, Socialist, etc, etc, etc).  We'll end up with 20+ people on stage and time enough for one or two questions each.  Completely ineffective.

I agree that our political structure is one that makes third party candidacies more difficult than they should be.  You're goal is a worthy one... making the process more open.  For sure, my personal views are not represented by either the Dems or the Reps (I'm closest to Libertarian, but even they are "off" on some of my views... and there is way too much single issue concentration among Libertarians right now - on gun rights, which I am strongly in favor of, but this focus is drawing some social anti-Libertarians into the fold).  However, the place to try to "fix" the process is not at the Presidential debates level.
Chaos would ensure

[© tweed]

I will not sign

[Wakie]

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.

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

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.

[Lunar]

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 Independence 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.

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

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.

[Lunar]

Then petition for that goshdarnit instead.    You can't pick the flowers before you plant them!

[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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

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

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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

Our electoral system mandates no such thing. Democrat and Republican controlled state legislatures have restricted ballot access. They hate the competition.

The Electoral College takes care of plurality outcomes at the national level.

I don't think ballot access is that big a deal.  The Libertarians are on every ballot and still get 0.5% every election; similar situation for the Greens.  The problem is the vote counting system which make a third-party vote effectively a totally wasted vote.   It is silly that strong Nader candidacy makes it more likely that we will elect a right-wing president.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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?

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

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.