Monday, May 20, 2013
Weather
Do the Debates Unfairly Shut Out Third Parties?Buchanan pointed approvingly to the practice in some European countries of holding debates with many candidates before whittling the debates down to the frontrunners. He said that the debate format and other barriers for third parties mean that the "anti-interventionist" perspective popular with a significant portion of the American public is not a part of the presidential conversation. "If you can get these views to the American people, we can change American politics," he said. "You would have a greater influence by third parties that represents points of view that the country really wanted, and you could force the major parties to adjust to them," he said. |
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled.
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
|
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .
Mark o said on Monday, Oct 15 at 7:07 PM
Should'nt the questions come from random audience members? These jokers have to give up some control, and besides, what it would be laughable to watch them stumble. These are not leaders but oligarach's who desire power.
104039746Arcticmoon said on Monday, Oct 15 at 12:54 PM
Yes they do unfairly shut out the third party candidates. I also watched the third party candidates in real time on Democracy Now on FSTV. The major parties don't want the vote split. It was reported on Thom Hartman that when you count the people who are voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate, that Mitt Romney may actually be a half point behind Obama. Unfortunately, the Republicans have been very successful at stealing our elections. An article on In These Times said that the Koch brothers sent a letter to 45,000 Georgia Pacific employees warning of consequences if they voted for Obama, Murray Energy, SG software and Westgate resorts have done the same thing. When you add this to all of the voter suppression around the country. I am afraid that the Republicans will steal the election even with the Libertarian Candidate to split the vote. There is also the Justice Candidate and the Green party candidate which will divide the vote for Obama.
104016231WhiteTrashInWasilla said on Monday, Oct 15 at 11:50 AM
I watched the "Expand The Debate" on Democracy now. It was very illuminating to hear Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson answer the same questions, Obama and Romney answered. For all their posturing, I do not see much difference between the two major parties. Let's face it neither Obama or Romney are going to shake the bush much, when they have to "dance with them what brought em". If we are ever to have a functioning democracy we must break the strangle hold of the two party system. If people like Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson's voice's are never heard, then how can people consider alternatives? The CPD, was created to maintain the status quo, and the sooner we demolish it the better. I like the idea of more debates with more candidates early on, then whittling the number down, as the election draws nearer. In closing, this year's election is a total farce. Never was never even a mention of a challenge to Obama, even though he is not exactly popular, not to mention Romney.
104010545Guest said on Monday, Oct 15 at 11:31 AM
I think the debates problem is trying to cover everything in one debate. They should have separated the topics for each debate. ie. one debate for foreign policy, domestic issues and so on. That way each candidate has more time and can go into more detail without having to worry about switching topics. That's my two cents for the day.
104008876Add a comment
Most Popular