TOPICS:
JUL 29, 2004 12:43 PM
Lemonnier said:
VeganGabriel said:
Why are third party candidates not allowed into the debates? 
The Commission on Presidential debates, a nonprofit which sponsors the four debates held between Sept 30 and Nov. 2, limits participation in its debates to those garnering 15 percent of voter support in national polls. Third-party candidates have long complained that they are unfairly excluded, but the commission says it wants to limit participation to those candidates with a realistic chance of winning the election.
Lemonnier, i'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one because that's not the whole story.
the real reason the debates are limited is because the the democratic and republican parties are in control of the debates(since 1988) and they want to keep the competition between themselves. also, they highly script the debates so that they aren't actaully debating at all, they're just stumping. it's one of the few things the parties work on together. actually, it's really scary and the federal elections commitee is being legally challenged on it.
OPEN DEBATES
I've donated to Open Debates as it is a cause I strongly support their cause. I urge everyone to check out the site and to read up on the issue at hand. The press conferences are quite informative.
an excerpt from Open Debates:
Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded and non-partisan League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the bi-partisan, corporate-sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as a nonpartisan institution committed to voter education, the CPD has continually and deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people.
JUL 29, 2004 12:49 PM
s5 said:
Lemonnier said:
VeganGabriel said:
Why are third party candidates not allowed into the debates?
The Commission on Presidential debates, a nonprofit which sponsors the four debates held between Sept 30 and Nov. 2, limits participation in its debates to those garnering 15 percent of voter support in national polls. Third-party candidates have long complained that they are unfairly excluded, but the commission says it wants to limit participation to those candidates with a realistic chance of winning the election.
ross perot was allowed to participate as a third party candidate in the debates, because he had enough support. i even remember watching them. there is no institutional bias against third party candidates - if you have enough support, you're invited.
it might be interesting if all third party candidates appeared on stage - you'd have a debate between a socialist, a neo-nazi, a green, a libertarian, a fundie, and the democrats and republicans. almost the making of a bad joke.
hate to burst your bubble here s5 but there is institutional bias in place.
check out my last post and check out Opendebates.org for more info. 
JUL 29, 2004 01:44 PM
whiterabbit said:
hate to burst your bubble here s5 but there is institutional bias in place.
check out my last post and check out Opendebates.org for more info.
OK, so I went to their website. And they said that the problem is because in 1988 control of the debates switched from the league of women voters to the commission on presidential debates (CPD) which is controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, and they want to exclude third party candidates. If that is the case, then why, prior to 1988, were there still no third party candidates participating in the debates? Televised debates had been going on since 1960, that's plenty of opportunities. And if the CPD is so exclusionary towards third party candidates, then why, as s5 already pointed out, was Ross Perot, a third party candidate, allowed to participate in 1992, just one election cycle after the CPD took over control of the debates?
JUL 29, 2004 02:10 PM
whiterabbit said:
Lemonnier said:
VeganGabriel said:
Why are third party candidates not allowed into the debates?
The Commission on Presidential debates, a nonprofit which sponsors the four debates held between Sept 30 and Nov. 2, limits participation in its debates to those garnering 15 percent of voter support in national polls. Third-party candidates have long complained that they are unfairly excluded, but the commission says it wants to limit participation to those candidates with a realistic chance of winning the election.
Lemonnier, i'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one because that's not the whole story.
the real reason the debates are limited is because the the democratic and republican parties are in control of the debates(since 1988) and they want to keep the competition between themselves. also, they highly script the debates so that they aren't actaully debating at all, they're just stumping. it's one of the few things the parties work on together. actually, it's really scary and the federal elections commitee is being legally challenged on it.
Actually, that's really all there is to it; everything else is disagreement with the dominant two-party system. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a non-profit organization that schedules and runs the debates. It's not a government organization. It's not some democrat-republican conspiracy to keep the third-party candidates down. They have a rule-- 15 percent of popular support and you get to play-- and they allowed a third-party candidate (Perot) into the debates when he met that requirement. Democrats and Republicans are the two dominant parties in American politics. Naturally, they're going to have a larger fundraising base. Nader, Buchanan, Hagelin et al don't like it, they might want to look into starting their own nonprofit to fund their debates instead of whining that they're being left out. Of course, that might be easier if they were viable candidates presenting workable policy goals, but that's another story. Yes, the sponsors of the debates are largely huge corporations, but hey, it's their money and as long as they comply with tax and election law, they're allowed to do with it as they please.
And just because something is legally challenged doesn't automatically mean it's invalid. Especially in this case, where the plaintiffs are what you might call professional plaintiffs.
JUL 29, 2004 03:12 PM
JUL 29, 2004 03:21 PM
whiterabbit said:
Lemonnier said:
VeganGabriel said:
Why are third party candidates not allowed into the debates?
The Commission on Presidential debates, a nonprofit which sponsors the four debates held between Sept 30 and Nov. 2, limits participation in its debates to those garnering 15 percent of voter support in national polls. Third-party candidates have long complained that they are unfairly excluded, but the commission says it wants to limit participation to those candidates with a realistic chance of winning the election.
Lemonnier, i'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one because that's not the whole story.
No, really thats the whole story. Moreover, Open Debates isn't a neutral player, they're an opportunistic organization with a different agenda. Please note who funds them and runs them: professional "outsiders" who want not the process but the forum.
the real reason the debates are limited is because the the democratic and republican parties are in control of the debates(since 1988) and they want to keep the competition between themselves.
No, the real reason the debates are limited is because the structure of our government more or less mandates a two party system, a fact both tacitly and explicitly acknowledged by Open Debates players if not policy. Multi party systems are not a panacea, they come with significant downsides, and frankly no one involved in Open Debates has any real interest in a multi party system. What they want is to use an outsider position and its attendant lack of accountability to dictate policy to the two major parties. Nothing wrong with that, but there is also nothing at all wrong with the major parties using their inherent advantages to resist. The fact is the fictional moral superiority of the Open debate position is completely rooted in a set of precepts they neither practice nor preach. They like the two party system, they practice the two party system and merely pretend to criticize it for partisan advantage.
JUL 29, 2004 03:27 PM
JUL 29, 2004 03:59 PM
JUL 29, 2004 04:06 PM
MarginWalker2002
San Diego, CA
April 2004
JUL 29, 2004 04:11 PM
JUL 29, 2004 05:24 PM
Mythicus
Lawnside, NJ
May 2004
JUL 30, 2004 09:40 AM
what was willis talking about?
JUL 30, 2004 10:13 AM
so no proof then. it's ok, i figured you'd write fancy sounding opinion over fact. 
Open debates Goal:
Open Debates works to ensure that the presidential debates serve the American people first.
Open Debates is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to reforming the presidential debate process. Currently, the presidential debates are secretly controlled by the major parties, through the private bipartisan corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates, resulting in the stultification of format, the exclusion of popular candidates, and the avoidance of pressing national issues.
The major party candidates never pay a political price for their antidemocratic practices; posing as an independent sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates shields the major party candidates from public criticism and public accountability.
Open Debates is launching simultaneous campaigns to inform the public, the news media and policy makers about the fundamental problems with the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. It is also promoting an alternative presidential debate sponsor - the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission - comprised of national civic leaders committed to maximizing voter education.
Open Debates Board of Directors:
John B. Anderson: Between 1961 and 1981, John B. Anderson served ten terms as U.S. Representative to Congress from the 16th District of Illinois. He served on the House Rules Committee and for a decade was Chairman of the House Republican Conference. In 1980, Anderson ran for President as an independent candidate. He participated in a presidential debate with Republican nominee Ronald Reagan and received over six million votes. Anderson has served as the chair of the Center for Voting Rights and Democracy since 1996.
Angela "Bay" Buchanan: Angela "Bay" Buchanan is the President of The American Cause, an educational foundation dedicated to advancing traditional conservative issues. Bay served as the campaign chairman for all three presidential campaigns of her brother, Pat Buchanan. In 1996, George magazine recognized her as one of the top 20 political women in the nation. Bay is also a political analyst for CNBC, MSNBC, Good Morning America and CNN's Inside Politics.
Pat Choate: Pat Choate directs a Washington-based policy institute, the Manufacturing Policy Project. He was the vice-presidential candidate of the Reform Party in 1996, when the party captured 8.40 percent of the popular vote. He is the author of several books, including Agents of Influence: How Japan Manipulates America's Political and Economic System.
Jon Hanson: Jon Hanson is a Professor at Harvard Law School. He teaches and writes about the the sources and effects of commercial influence on our institutions. He is also a co-founder of Just Advocates, an information clearinghouse on private firms committed to the pursuit of justice.
George Farah: George Farah, founder of Open Debates, graduated from Princeton University and attends Harvard Law School. He is the author of No Debate, a book exposing the flaws of the presidential debate process that will be released in February by Seven Stories Press. He is also the Executive Director of Open Debates.
Larry Noble: Larry Noble is the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Center for Responsive Politics. Prior to that, he served as General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission from 1987 until 2000. Noble also served as the president of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws from 1997 to 1998. He teaches Campaign Finance Law at George Washington University Law School.
Jamin B. Raskin: Jamin B. Raskin served as an Assistant Attorney General in Boston and is currently a professor of Constitutional Law at American University. Raskin has been a leading critic of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and he filed lawsuits on behalf of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader to prevent their exclusion from the presidential debates. His recent book, Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court Versus the American People, elucidates the flaws of the presidential debate process.
Randall Robinson: Randall Robinson is a Harvard-trained lawyer and founder of TransAfrica, the foremost American think- tank on U.S. foreign policy matters dealing with Africa and the Caribbean. Robinson earned international respect for his efforts to help end apartheid in South Africa, and, more recently, his activities prompted U.S. humanitarian intervention in Somalia and helped shape U.S. policy toward Haitian refugees. Robinson is the author of several books, including The Debt: What America Owes Blacks.
Paul M. Weyrich: Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. From 1989 to 1996, Mr. Weyrich served as President of the Kreible Institute of the Free Congress Foundation, responsible for training democracy movements in the states comprising the Former Soviet Empire. He is a founder and past director of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the founding president of the Heritage Foundation, and the current National Chairman of Coalitions for America. Readers of Conservative Digest voted him as one of the top three "most popular conservatives in America not in Congress."
List of supporters:
20/20 Vision
Accuracy In Media
Alliance for Better Campaigns
The American Cause
Appleseed Electoral Reform Project
Ballot Access News
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Center for Food Safety
Center for Reclaiming America
Center for Rural Strategies
Center for Study of Responsive Law
Center for Voting and Democracy
Citizens for Participation in Political Action
Citizen Works
Common Cause
Commonwealth Coalition
Conservative Caucus
Declaration Foundation
Democracy Matters
Democracy South
Democracy Unplugged
Demos
Earth Island Institute
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting
Fannie Lou Hamer Project
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Free Congress Foundation
Free Press
Friends of the Earth
Fund for Constitutional Government
Global Exchange
GRACE Public Fund
Grassroots Unity
Greenpeace
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Infact
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Judicial Watch
League of Rural Voters
MassVOTE
Midwest Democracy Center
National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Priorities Project
National Voting Rights Institute
The National Youth & Student Peace Coalition
National Youth Advocacy Coalition
Native Forest Council
New Road Map Foundation
Ohio Citizen Action
Public Campaign
Rainforest Action Network
Reclaim Democracy
RenewAmerica
Santa Monica Ranked Voting
Student Environmental Action Coalition
Texans for Public Justice
Tikkun
US English
The Voting Rights Project of the Institute for Southern Studies
MAJOR NEWSPAPERS CONTINUE TO BACK THE CITIZENS' DEBATE COMMISSION:
Chicago Sun-Times (07/05)
St. Paul Pioneer Press (06/25)
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (06/24)
The Tennessean (06/20)
The Oregonian (06/14)
The Seattle Times (06/14)
Los Angeles Times (06/12)
Can you prove your conspiracy theory and show me how all of these different groups, executives, and newspapers are "career political operatives, professional spoilers, and power brokers" and can you prove that all "...they want is to use an outsider position and its attendant lack of accountability to dictate policy to the two major parties."
Can you honestly say that opening up the debates is a bad thing?
What do you have to fear from turning back to a non-partisan, non-profit debate commission?
You make it sound like this is some heinous attack on the two parties. It's not, it is simply people coming together to try to take control of the presidential debates away from the RNC and DNC. Sounds to me like they're trying to level the playing field.
ps. please try to watch the press conference, it will provide you with all the information you need, directly from the source
ps2. fyi, i'm not upset or anything while typing this, i would just like some sources for your claims.
JUL 30, 2004 10:26 AM
s5 said:
Lemonnier said:
VeganGabriel said:
Why are third party candidates not allowed into the debates?
The Commission on Presidential debates, a nonprofit which sponsors the four debates held between Sept 30 and Nov. 2, limits participation in its debates to those garnering 15 percent of voter support in national polls. Third-party candidates have long complained that they are unfairly excluded, but the commission says it wants to limit participation to those candidates with a realistic chance of winning the election.
ross perot was allowed to participate as a third party candidate in the debates, because he had enough support. i even remember watching them. there is no institutional bias against third party candidates - if you have enough support, you're invited.
it might be interesting if all third party candidates appeared on stage - you'd have a debate between a socialist, a neo-nazi, a green, a libertarian, a fundie, and the democrats and republicans. almost the making of a bad joke.
yeah and remember when perot ran in '96 and they banned him based on the realistic chance argument. his response was dole shouldn't be allowed to partake either.
(point being it is, to a degree, a rigged system and third party canidates are usually not invited to the buffet. perot was an exeception because of his support, but also because he made the other candiates look so good)
one question: "assuming you have eight succesful years in office, where do you plan to leave this country when you step down?" of course this assumes an honest answer, so its not a great question.
scotty_bane
Fort Worth, TX
February 2004
JUL 30, 2004 11:15 AM
JUL 30, 2004 01:16 PM
whiterabbit said:
so no proof then. it's ok, i figured you'd write fancy sounding opinion over fact.
You do understand that you have adduced no facts in support of your assertions, right?
Open debates Goal:
Oooh, they have a goal. Well it must be legitimate and transparent. Everybody knows that a goal makes you credible.
Open Debates Board of Directors:
And here is where the rubber meets the road.
John B. Anderson Career politician and political operative. Republican congressman, chair of the Republican conference, sought Republican nomination for presidency, lost, ran vanity campaign for presidency. Historical footnote.
Angela "Bay" Buchanan: Lobbyist, power broker, and professional political operative whose goal is to drag the GOP to the far right.
Pat Choate: Lobbyist, power broker, and professional political operative whose goal is rabid isolationism
Jon Hanson: Anti tort reform, anti-globalist academic, and Trial Lawyer Advocate
George Farah: Self aggrandizing opportunist, political aspirant.
Larry Noble: Beltway insider, Reagan appointee
Jamin B. Raskin: Paid advocate for Nader (lost), Paid advocate for Perot (lost), paid advocate for Rainbow/PUSH, mucraking author, beltway academic
Randall Robinson: Lobyist, power broker, muckraker, expatriate, founder of the race reparations movement.
Paul M. Weyrich: Lobbyist, power broker, political operative, reactionary conservative
Can you prove your conspiracy theory
There really is no theory involved, you just clearly can't read a resume, nor do you apparently understand that a laundry list of fringe pressure groups, PACs and Lobbyists really isn't a mandate. Notice who's not on that list: the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, the NAACP. Thre are maybe half a dozen credible groups on that list, and two of them are miles outside their programatic expertise.
Can you honestly say that opening up the debates is a bad thing?
Can you answer any of my questions that you've ignored? Besides wasting bandwidth, you've done nothing but regurgitate conclusory true believer nonsense. Its simple really: what do you want, why is that good and how can you achieve it? From here you don't seem to know what you want, can't articulate the actual benfits of what you want and can't grasp that the first amendment and the free association clause rather prevent you from forcing that to happen.
What do you have to fear from turning back to a non-partisan, non-profit debate commission?
I don't fear a damn thing, I'm not a politician. I'm just bright enough to realize that its simply not going to happen, there's no way to force it to happen, and its largely irrelevant to our democratic process. This is really nothing more than a bunch of fringe dwellers looking to force their way to a place at the table that they simply haven't earned, as though tis some kind of ephemeral entitlement.
You make it sound like this is some heinous attack on the two parties. It's not, it is simply people coming together to try to take control of the presidential debates away from the RNC and DNC. Sounds to me like they're trying to level the playing field.
You know how you level the playing field? By having a mandate. There is no other way. If you can't develop a mandate until the month before an election riding someone else's media coattails, you're not a fucking candidate.
ps. please try to watch the press conference, it will provide you with all the information you need, directly from the source
I have all the information, thanks. This is nothing new. If you wish to continue to believe that a cadre of of career beltway insiders have suddenly put aside their personal and partisan goals for the good of the American people, knock yourself out, but at the very least try to figure out where the good in what they want is, instead of fobbing off some "They're sticking it to the man it must be worthwhile" juvenilia.
[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by reprobate]
JUL 30, 2004 03:20 PM
JUL 30, 2004 05:54 PM
JUL 30, 2004 05:56 PM
JUL 30, 2004 06:01 PM
amish_hitman said:
what president in the past would you fist fight...and why
this should be a whole different thread...
teddy! cuz he's was a badass!
JUL 30, 2004 06:06 PM
slimjim said:
amish_hitman said:
what president in the past would you fist fight...and why
this should be a whole different thread...
teddy! cuz he's was a badass!
...that is what i would ask the presidential candidate
navin
Seattle, WA
September 2002
JUL 29, 2004 12:40 PM