Presidential Debates Petition

[The Vorlon]

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.

You campaigning for DC statehood again.... ?

[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?

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.

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

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?

[millwx]

I'm more referring to adopting preferential voting or proportional representation.

If my understanding of what you're talking about here is right... I, personally, VERY MUCH like the preferential voting method.  This is the method they use in New Zealand, I believe.

It allows one to vote for a third party candidate without feeling any sort of "pressure" to vote for one of the two main parties.  The "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" argument goes out the window.  The voter votes Nader as first preference, then Gore as second.

In such a system the third parties will have much more success.  Meanwhile, a President will not be elected who represents an ideological minorty, if, say, the 3rd party candidate was more closely aligned ideologically with the other candidate.  In that case, the ideological majority loses.  And before Reps jump up and down thinking that's a backhanded comment regarding Bush not representing the ideology of the majority of the country... lest we forget, many Perot voters in 1992 may well have voted Bush (rather than Clinton) on their second choice.  The knife cuts both ways on this.  Two of the last three elections we have elected presidents representing minority ideologies, simply because of the entry of third-party candidates.  The preferential voting protects against such silliness.

[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.

[ATFFL]

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?

[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!

[cwelsch]

The so-called Citizen's Debate Commision isn't very open, the regulations might barely let in Nader.  This is the intent, lower standards just enough for Nader but not enough for Badnarik, Brown or others.

The standard should be simple: if you are on the ballots of states whose electoral votes add up to 270 then you get a spot in the debate.  Right now this would allow in Bush, Kerry, Badnarik (he's already on at least 29 state ballots), Peroutka, and eventually Nader and/or the Green candidate might get on.  In other words, 4 to 6 candidates.

It's a vicious cycle: he needs media attention to get included in polls, he needs to get included in polls to get media attention.  Meanwhilem there is verifiable support for these candidates in the form of ballot access.  These are the candidates with theoretical chances of winning and they should be included in the debates.

The "Citizen's Debate Commission" is more or less progressives and Naderites who want to let in Nader and nobody else; they are using an arbitrary number just a better arbitrary number.  We should use a bright line: if you're on ballots in enough states (with enough total EVs) to win in the electoral college then you get in the debate.

[Nation]

One of the big problems is that it's extremely difficult for a third party candidate to fully fund his campaign to get on the ballot in all 50 states -- candidates who get zero TV time, because the TV stations don't care about them. You let a guy like Badnarik or Nader into the debates, and people will actually take them more serious.

You can't tell a person they're not a serious candidate until they can get in the debates, when the partisan debate commission requires 15% polling average to get in. It's ridiculous.

[Lunar]

So should the Alaskan Independence Party be allowed the same ammount of time as the Republican and Democratic parties?

We need some debates with just the serious candidates.  Have some more beyond the normal 3 if you want some open ones.

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

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

Location
Location
Locaton

When you are running for President it's

Tv
Tv
Tv

[cwelsch]

First of all, the Alaskan Independence Party doesn't run a Presidential candidate I don't think.  I believe they contest state offices.  I can't imagine them getting on the ballot outside Alaska, so they'd be limited to 3 electoral votes and could literally never win.

If minor candidates from the Independence (Ventura's) Party or Natural Law are on the ballot in at least 270 EVs worth of states then yeah, they deserve a shot.

Kerry and Bush are already going to pick up major media attention, way more donations and even the post-debate analysis will focus almost entirely on the top two or three candidates.  Did you watch the cable networks analyze the Democratic primary debates or see the soundbites on nightly news?  Almost never anything about Kucinich, even less about Moseley-Braun (her biggest news story of the campaign was dropping out to endorse Dean), Bob graham got very little, Sharpton was usually mentioned as personable but never in a serious political sense.  They stuck with five: Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman.  This is only because this was an usually close primary before the Iowa Caucuses.

In a real debate with 6 Presidential candidates of different parties, the media would focus heavily on the Republican and Democrat, then maybe give mention to the Libertarian (being on all fifty-one ballots pulls some attention) or green/Nader type.  But Bush and Kerry would get like 3/4s or more of post-debate coverage and soundbites, in addition to constantly making the news anyway.

[zorkpolitics]

Sorry won't sign because I don't think it is in the best interest of the country.
The debates are one of the few times most Americans actually listen to either candidate outside of ads or sound bites.  That time should not be diluted with the opinions of no-chance candidates.
In 2000 7 candidates were on more than 40 state ballots, if they had been in the debates they would have seriously diluted the Gore and Bush exposures in the debates.
I'd prefer an "equal time" debate for the minor candidates the following, or previous night.  Thus giving the 5 or so candidates a chance to be heard.  If they then rose in the polls to 15%, then invite them to the next debate

[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?

[© tweed]

How about this:

3 Big Debates (Bush v Kerry)

3 Small Debates (Badnarik v Nader v Peroutka)

[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.

[cwelsch]

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.

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

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.

[cwelsch]

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

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

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).

[The Duke]

I only think important people belong in the debates.  Ergo, no Nader.

[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?

[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.

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

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.

[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.