Is it fair to exclude independent candidates from presidential debates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skeptic
  • Start date Start date
S

Skeptic

Guest
Did you know that Google is considering the idea of sponsoring debates that would include independed candidates and third parties? Wouldn't you like to hear more important issues discussed?

The sponsors of the TV debates have changed the criteria in order to exclude candidates when possible politically (they are controlled by Democrates and Republicans). The media has ignored Ralph Nader and the presidential debates have excluded him. Wouldn't you like to hear all of the candidates debate all of the topics including:

- Total withdrawal from the Middle East
- War profiteering, corporate welfare, and corporate crime.
- Impeachment of Bush
- Universal, single payer health care such as the systems in Canada, Austrailia, and France.
- Fair access to ballots by third parties.

The presidential debates are boring because they are setup to be "safe." Shouldn't Americans hear where all the presidential candidates stand?
 
If a third-party candidate had done well in early primaries, then he or she would have been included in subsequent debates. But television is not a medium that lends itself to a debate with a cast of thousands. For one thing, the content tends to get drowned out by snickering at the crackpots. Internet-based debates or Q&A, on the other hand, might well be feasible, and is an excellent idea. The moderator could pose a question to all the candidates, and the candidates would have a set time to respond. Then viewers on the Web could point and click at the clips of the responses that they are interested in seeing.
 
It would be nice if they invited all Candidates to all Presidential Debates. However, the powers that be, do not want us to hear all sides of the spectrum. They have it burned into their tiny pea brains we are only a Two Party System when we are not.
 
You cant have everyone that place their name on a piece of paper at the debate. I believe that we should allow a 3rd, 4th, 5th and on and on...however, candidate should have proven that their name appears on at least 80% of the states in this country
 
The "supporters" of third-party candidates are always whining about this. Here's a reality check:

In such as the Internet, you can have more candidates in a debate, granted.

However, what the fringe groupies want to ignore are three simple facts (pay particular attention to #3):

1) Major media have to spend a lot of money to put on a debate. They don't want to waste valuable air time on irrelevant candidates that could be put to better use letting the American people get a better look at those candidates who might actually win. That is not only good economics, its a more useful public service.

2) The major candidates are hard-pressed to get all the things they need to do accomplished. They do not have time to waste indulging the whims of some fringe candidates whining for attention tey don't deserve.

3) The reason fringe candidates are fringe candidates and therefore irrelevant is that they don't have anything worthwhile to offer. As the nonsense Nader is spouting clearly demonstrates. Wish-fantasies, good or bad, are not policy proposals. They are simply empty rhetoric. We need real policy changes, not sound-bytes.
 
Back
Top