• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debates: how many is too many?

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
I was watching that CPD mouthpiece Janet Brown on C-SPAN Sunday making excuse after excuse to caller after caller wondering why they can't have other options in the debates other than the Big Two. It's clear she was just talking around the answer, but the general jist of it seemed to be, "Because you voters are to stupid to handle any more than two candidates."

Well, this does seem to be a very sophisticated voter audience here, so let me ask all of you: how many candidates do YOU think there could be in a debate before it gets too far out of hand? Personally, I've seen debates between 6 candidates work, and work better than the rigged CPD debates with the two major contendors.

So how many can you handle?
 
shanek said:
So how many can you handle?
Click to expand...

I think it's how many can the format handle. In an hour-long broadcast how much speaking time would each candidate get if there are 10 participants? 3 or 4 minutes?

Of course if we like what we hear we could do our own independent research on that candidate but personally I feel that with more than 4 or 5 participants it tends to get sloppy and you don't get to hear anything substantial from them.

BTW, which is the fairest way to select who gets to participate? (of course you can't have everyone who would like to be President participate)
 
Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

HarryKeogh said:
BTW, which is the fairest way to select who gets to participate? (of course you can't have everyone who would like to be President participate)
Click to expand...


Well, the Dems and Reps will never give up control, so the fairest way is to let the Democrats choose the third-party candidate that will be the biggest thorn in the Republican's side and let the Republicans do the same. Four participants and enough diversity to focus the debate on real issues.
 
Back before Kerry was the clear democratic nominee, it was ...well, not difficult, but boring having to listen to all the candidates when I was really only interested in what a few of them had to say.

However, from a principle point of view, I think anyone who got their name on a ballot should have the right to be included in a debate. At the very least, they should be included in debates that occur in the states where they are on the ballot. From a more pragmatic point of view, I could see limiting it to those candidates who have a chance of actually winning, meaning that if they won all the states where they are on the ballot they'd have enough electorial votes to win.

Both of those would be objective criteria to determine who should be included in a debate and who wouldn't.
 
Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

Ladewig said:
Well, the Dems and Reps will never give up control, so the fairest way is to let the Democrats choose the third-party candidate that will be the biggest thorn in the Republican's side and let the Republicans do the same. Four participants and enough diversity to focus the debate on real issues.
Click to expand...

The most interesting debates occur between two candidates, given the forum.

Two at a time, that is. I've got no problem with hundreds or millions of participants debating, but let them do it two at a time and on a voluntary basis, of course.
 
Upchurch said:
Back before Kerry was the clear democratic nominee, it was ...well, not difficult, but boring having to listen to all the candidates when I was really only interested in what a few of them had to say.

However, from a principle point of view, I think anyone who got their name on a ballot should have the right to be included in a debate. At the very least, they should be included in debates that occur in the states where they are on the ballot. From a more pragmatic point of view, I could see limiting it to those candidates who have a chance of actually winning, meaning that if they won all the states where they are on the ballot they'd have enough electorial votes to win.

Both of those would be objective criteria to determine who should be included in a debate and who wouldn't.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that prevents this except the willingness of the candidates in question. Should any candidate be legally forced to debate another?
 
Rob Lister said:
There is nothing that prevents this except the willingness of the candidates in question. Should any candidate be legally forced to debate another?
Click to expand...
No, I was thinking more of requirements for those who hold and televise debates rather than requirements for the candidates. What I was suggesting were guidelines for who gets invited.
 
In the UK, the media is required to cover all candidates; by government regulation :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

Ladewig said:
Well, the Dems and Reps will never give up control, so the fairest way is to let the Democrats choose the third-party candidate that will be the biggest thorn in the Republican's side and let the Republicans do the same. Four participants and enough diversity to focus the debate on real issues.
Click to expand...

If I run for president under your system, I'm going to make sure that a 'ringer' becomes a third-party candidate and choose him. It's a small task for the Dems or Reps to do such a thing.

Now that would really tick off the Greens and Libertarians, huh?
 
Personally, I would like to see Mr. His Royal Majesty Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte Emperor included in the presidental candidate debates.

His platform:

Abortion Issues:
Funding for family, and single behavior plannning which would help optimize an awareness of both sexual responsibility about conception control, but each level of state, county, & city should bear major responsibility for funding these programs.
Click to expand...

Budget Priorities:
HIGH YIELD MASTER SECURITY PLAN for those countries that comply with Peace plan
Click to expand...

START COLLECTING WHAT INTERNATIONAL GOVTS. OWE
Click to expand...

Defense Spending:
Answers here would change on the debriefing I would get if I was recognized as new leader of the U.S.
Click to expand...


Taxes:
If Taxpayers profits are high then taxes apply.
If taxpayers show losses then taxes are lower or waived.
Click to expand...

His Majesty would look at the unedited books of gross national production verses gross national debt before any New tax
Click to expand...

Crime Issues:
On crime issues his majesty needs only one law that will deal with Capitol crimes, and repeat offenders the rest of existing laws can be streamlined and simplified over a four year period or less with this one law most all crime would stop in it's tracks
Click to expand...

Drug Issues:
the emperors special security plan would end the majority of drug selling and addicts would be forced to be in rehab programs legalizing marijuana and taxing it and changing the way cigarettes are used will become a thing of the past. there will be many fringe benefits that will come from this new endeavor.
Click to expand...

Education Issues:
Federal govt. is not fully responsible for the education of it's people all peoples are free to teach themselves or learn from schools, & teachers ultimately it is up to the city, county, and state to provide the first steps in education.
Click to expand...

Employment and Affirmative Action Issues
It isn't the responsibility of the Federal govt. to guarantee jobs for people they take on that responsibility & risk when they work for the free enterprise system just as the govt. is not responsible for the success of corp. or business except for rare exceptions corp. should not be bailed out of financial problems.
Click to expand...

Gun Issues:
His Majesty can implement a new program (cheap) which would end gun violence except for rare instances or unusual circumstances and practically anyone can own all the guns they want but I will not divulge this until I am elected not president but Emperor of the U.S.
Click to expand...

Health Issues:
I would include Homopathic,super special nutrient, and slow motion aging programs along the life Extension criterion.
Click to expand...

Presidential Priorities:
FIRST: TO ACHIEVE A 1000 YEAR PEACE STARTING WITH MY ACCEPTED RULE OVER THIS LAND

2nd. ESTABLISHING A TRUE JURISDICTION AND RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION OF ALL ELEMENTS OF GOVERNMENTS, PEOPLES AND THEIR GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCTS SO THAT ALL TRUE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOSTLY EVERYTHING IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE. "casting unfair blame on others has been prevalent for much to long" this quote isn't absolute.

THIRD: TO SEEK OUT EXCEPTIONAL LEADERS AND FIND PEACEFUL WAYS TO INSTALL THEM IN ALL COUNTRIES SO THAT THE WORLD CAN (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE SAGA OF HOMO SAPIENS RULE) PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINED UNIVERSAL COMPLACENT STANDARDS.

CONFORMED PHILOSOPHICAL IDEALS ARE DIFFICULT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE, THE HUMAN RACE KEEPS TRYING ONLY MORE LIGHT IS NEEDED TO SHOW THE WAY to BEST ACHIEVEMENT" ONE PERSON MAKES A DIFFERENCE" I KNOW I AM THE WAY, and LEADERS ARE GHOSTS WITHOUT 5th. level people to support representing them.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

HarryKeogh said:
BTW, which is the fairest way to select who gets to participate? (of course you can't have everyone who would like to be President participate)
Click to expand...

If the CPD were to just drop their third requirement (15% in national polls) altogether, then there would (as of right now) be five participants, because only five fit the Constitutional requirements for President and are on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning.

If they were to drop their polling requirement to 3%, then there would only be three candidates.

I've heard an idea that I like: no polling requirement for the first debate, 5% polling requirement for the second, and 10% for the third. That way, everyone could get their say initially, but only the ones whose message resonates with the people get invited to the other debates, so the number gets pared down as it goes.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

aerocontrols said:
If I run for president under your system, I'm going to make sure that a 'ringer' becomes a third-party candidate and choose him. It's a small task for the Dems or Reps to do such a thing.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt that a ringer could get on the ballot in enough states to have a chance of winning, and thus be eligible for inclusion. Nader this year positioned himself as essentially a "ringer" for the Republicans, gaining their support since he would "take away" votes from Kerry. He's struggled to get on the ballot in only 20 states, and that's with all of his name recognition.
 
Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

Luke T. said:
Seventy-three

Which ones would you exclude?
Click to expand...

The ones who were not on the ballot in enough states to have a nonzero chance of winning. That is a very objective and reasonable measure. Polling data isn't, especially since most national polls only include the top two candidates.
 
Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

shanek said:
The ones who were not on the ballot in enough states to have a nonzero chance of winning. That is a very objective and reasonable measure. Polling data isn't, especially since most national polls only include the top two candidates.
Click to expand...

But I thought the system was rigged to keep non-Dems/Reps off the ballot? And if they could just be heard in a national debate, then they could have a better chance to get on the ballot!
 
According to Badnarik's campaign web site, he isn't on the ballot in enough states to meet your criteria.

edited to add: link

Additionally, they report the following prediction: "One other candidate (Libertarian Michael Badnarik) is likely to obtain ballot access in a sufficient number of states to theoretically win the Presidency with 270 electoral votes."
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

Luke T. said:
But I thought the system was rigged to keep non-Dems/Reps off the ballot?
Click to expand...

It is, but that's hardly the fault of the people who run the debates. Besides, if a candidate can make it through all of that and still end up with enough potential electoral votes to win, that right there is a good indication of nationwide support and the justification for the CPD's third criteria is blown away even more.

And if they could just be heard in a national debate, then they could have a better chance to get on the ballot!
Click to expand...

Uh, no, because the debates take place after the ballot access deadlines expire. Once again, you show how much you want for thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom