Presidential Debates Petition

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

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.

Unions do the same thing. Hope you're not in one of those. But that's O/T. Take the federal money. Win and then change it from within. Use the system to your advantage!

[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.

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

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.

I would use the system as it is and then try to change it from the inside. That's if I ran for office.

[zorkpolitics]

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?

They are no chance candidates because they have no chance to win enough Electoral Votes  to make any difference.  Even Perot with big bucks and a media frenzy who did get 19 million votes failed to earn a single EV.  He was in the debates because he exceeded 20% in the polls, but he still failed to win a single Electoral Vote.  Minor party candidates will continue to be no chance candidates unless they raise  the money, advertise and compete.

More to the point, since only the major party candidates have a chance to win, it is a distraction and waste of time to give the no chance candidates time that would dilute the voters exposure to the real candidates.

The compromise here is giving the minor party candidates a separate forum to reach the voters that are interested, if they use that exposure to propel themselves above 15% in the polls, then let them into the debates, but they need to prove they actually might have a chance, rather than a theoretical chance

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

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?

They are no chance candidates because they have no chance to win enough Electoral Votes  to make any difference.  Even Perot with big bucks and a media frenzy who did get 19 million votes failed to earn a single EV.  He was in the debates because he exceeded 20% in the polls, but he still failed to win a single Electoral Vote.  Minor party candidates will continue to be no chance candidates unless they raise  the money, advertise and compete.

More to the point, since only the major party candidates have a chance to win, it is a distraction and waste of time to give the no chance candidates time that would dilute the voters exposure to the real candidates.

The compromise here is giving the minor party candidates a separate forum to reach the voters that are interested, if they use that exposure to propel themselves above 15% in the polls, then let them into the debates, but they need to prove they actually might have a chance, rather than a theoretical chance

I agree with this. Although I believe Perot would have won if he hadn't dropped out.

[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.

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

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 200 debates, there were about 26 million less viewers of the debates. 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.

Not everyone is into politics like us mind you. A lot of people want to watch the debates to settle them once and for all.

[cwelsch]

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).

1) They don't take federal money because they're against it.  They're against political welfare while the Democrats and the Republicans drop to their knees for federal handouts.  I wouldn't mind HORRIBLY if they took federal money as a temporary thing, on the justification that a) they pay into it and b) it's the only way to defeat the statists.  But I respect that they don't.

2) They do run TV ads, they are often limited money-wise, but when they can they try for TV.  They have to spend a lot on ballot access and then a lot on travel to get to campaign events.  You can hardly blame them for this, since it's largely a factor of their war chests and less so their strategies - although certainly they couldsqueeze more from TV.  Personal appearances are the best bet for any candidate, TV just adds to legitimacy.

3) They do hold a national convention, just nobody covers it.  C-SPAN covers a lot of it, but the networks and the cabkle networks don't cover it. They can't be blamed for the media.

See, you're listing good obstacles that stand in the way of a Libertarian victory, but you can't blame lack of money or media coverage on them.  All the third parties have similar problems, Libertarians are actually deling with it best of them all.

Libertarians get a lot of votes considering the money spent.  In some races the Democrat, Republican or both spend like ten times as much per vote or more than the Libertarian.  If that ratio held up then a little more money or attention would send them a long way.

[cwelsch]

The debates were bigger when Reagan debated Anderson, Clinton and Bush debated Perot, etc.

If I ran the commission I'd probably make it open to everybody on enough state ballots to theoretically win, with at least 4 to 6 candidates even if only 2 or 3 met the first qualification.  It's boring without some disparate views.

People don't want to watch two very well known guys give joint press conferences.  That's all it is, two press conferences side-by-side.  There's very little actual debate of the issues, and no other views provided.  Everybody asks what the federal health care policy should be and there's never a Libertarian to say "none" or a Green to say "everything."  We need more discussion of issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[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.