There would have to be some sort of criteria set. There was a list on this site awhile ago that had something like 20 third party candidates. If all were in the debate, we would only get one question asked before the thing was over.
John,
It could be as simple as a 3rd party canidate would have to have a certain number of signitures on a petition, I think that is required in order to be on hte ballott!
I seem to recall that there is a criteria that needs to be met. Seems to me that it is based on poll data. In my opinion, if there is only one instance in recent history of a 3rd party candidate getting on the national debates (Ross Perot) than the criteria to get into the debates is too limiting.
Gary,
Yes, in NY there is a 5% rule for petitions. But not all states have the same rule.
There is also a question of who has the right to tell somebody they have to allow more people to debate. The debates are not government run, but run by private groups. Should we be telling them what to do?
There are approximately 30 candidates for POTUS. In the six weeks between the Democratic Convention and Election Day- with five participants per debate, three debates per week for six weeks, round-robin; all 30 could have faced each other for three distinct sessions of questions: Climate/Energy Policy, Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy. It would be far more valuable and involve far more voters than two candidates stumping in a handful of swing states.
...And if anyone wonders who would pay for it- it should be written in the FCC agreement that ALL broadcast outlets will air the debates in entirety, and broadcast networks will share the cost of production.
Oh come on John, the networks would sell ad time and if they make the debates interesting enough with real questions instead of pre-approved spoon fed pablum, then they'd get big audiences and probably make money on them.
We need more choices, period.
We need more choices, period.
There would have to be some
There would have to be some sort of criteria set. There was a list on this site awhile ago that had something like 20 third party candidates. If all were in the debate, we would only get one question asked before the thing was over.
John, Kind of like the last
John, Kind of like the last NYS Gov. race where the one guy was from "The rent is too dam high" party. lol
John, It could be as simple
John,
It could be as simple as a 3rd party canidate would have to have a certain number of signitures on a petition, I think that is required in order to be on hte ballott!
I seem to recall that there
I seem to recall that there is a criteria that needs to be met. Seems to me that it is based on poll data. In my opinion, if there is only one instance in recent history of a 3rd party candidate getting on the national debates (Ross Perot) than the criteria to get into the debates is too limiting.
Gary, Yes, in NY there is a
Gary,
Yes, in NY there is a 5% rule for petitions. But not all states have the same rule.
There is also a question of who has the right to tell somebody they have to allow more people to debate. The debates are not government run, but run by private groups. Should we be telling them what to do?
There are approximately 30
There are approximately 30 candidates for POTUS. In the six weeks between the Democratic Convention and Election Day- with five participants per debate, three debates per week for six weeks, round-robin; all 30 could have faced each other for three distinct sessions of questions: Climate/Energy Policy, Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy. It would be far more valuable and involve far more voters than two candidates stumping in a handful of swing states.
...And if anyone wonders who
...And if anyone wonders who would pay for it- it should be written in the FCC agreement that ALL broadcast outlets will air the debates in entirety, and broadcast networks will share the cost of production.
http://occupythecpd.org/
http://occupythecpd.org/
I don't like the idea of
I don't like the idea of mandating anyone pay for it or have to broadcast them. It's always easy to say how somebody else has to spend their money.
Oh come on John, the networks
Oh come on John, the networks would sell ad time and if they make the debates interesting enough with real questions instead of pre-approved spoon fed pablum, then they'd get big audiences and probably make money on them.
I Signed it, thanks for
I Signed it, thanks for sharing this C M