http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/green-party-candidates-arrested-at-presidential-debate/ So, our system is designed so that only Republicans and Democrats get to the second debate. That's fair!
In an ideal world this candidate would have a place at the podiums, but that same ideal world would also present a candidate that's not a crackpot.
Nope. They're carefully managed by the parties. The League of Women voters used to be in charge of them, but they got so sick of the parties being dicks about the whole thing that they washed their hands of them. (IIRC, this happened in '96 or '00.)
Right. They are a private event, covered by the media, much like a baseball game. I've never understood the conceipt that other candidates have a right to participate. Stein and Johnson should have their own private debate and I'm sure plenty of people will watch.
According to the other thread one of the conditions the candidates agree to in going to this debate is that they won't participate in any other public debates, so I don't see anything wrong with protesting about the candidates being so reinforcing of the two party system.
Comission on Presidential Debates, a non-governmental entity. http://www.debates.org/ Commission Leadership Co-Chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. Michael D. McCurry Honorary Co-Chairmen Gerald R. Ford†Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan†William J. Clinton Co-Chairman Emeritus Paul G. Kirk, Jr. Board of Directors Howard G. Buffett John C. Danforth John Griffen Antonia Hernandez Reverend John I. Jenkins Newton N. Minow Richard D. Parsons Dorothy Ridings Alan K. Simpson All Republicans and Democrats. Outcome? Predictable.
http://www.dailypaul.com/258048/3rd...orldwide-on-al-jazeera-link-tv-and-free-equal Also... Plus there's this: [yt=Stossel!]K5rDCcIBgSo[/yt] I don't think it can be remotely argued these events have remotely the high profile of tonight's event.
Oh, there's nothing wrong with offering the opinion that the format stinks. But the Greens and Libertarians have a history of trying to fight the format in court, along with stunts like trying to force there way in on the day of the event. And legally speaking, they have no ground to stand on.
It's an interesting dilemna. On one hand I agree that the Green and Libertarian party candidates should be allowed to participate,but I don't think we should include every duck with a quack that filed. That would just turn the debate into a circus.
True, but any candidate on the ballot in, say, 2/3s of the states should be a participant in the debates.
A good bellwether is the ones that the alternative candidates are presenting - having a mathematical chance of winning the election. The current stance of the Commission is that they must poll at at least 15% across 5 national polls. The original organization behind the debates was the League of Women Voters. They withdrew their support in 1988, when they stated that the current debate format was intended to commit a fraud against the American electorate.
The Democratic and Republican Parties equally own the not-for-profit that runs the debates, specifically to exclude third-party candidates and avoid another Ross Perot embarrassment.
The other debate gave an invite to all candidates that are mathematically theoretically able to win enough votes from being listed in states. Gul, I would in theory agree that going after the debate organizers in court is futile, except for the fact that there are already laws in the US governing the workings of private organizations. See all the laws in various states regarding the primary process for example.
