Third Party Candidate Debate on C-SPAN

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-31 11:32am

Right now, I'm watching a four-way debate between third party presidential candidates taped Oct. 6th at Cornell University. The contestants are David Cobb (Green Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walt Brown (Socialist Party), and Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party). They are spirited, articulate, direct; taking questions from the audience and staking clear positions on the issues without going into repetitious sloganeering. Further, each one manages to make at least one point you can agree with. Say what you will about their platforms, but these gents would have easily made both Kerry and Bush their bitches on a debate stage.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-31 11:34am

Hence why they were excluded; they didn't want to have a debate. It might as well have been Dueling Press Conferences for all the debating they actually did.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-31 12:37pm

It's sad that the US is stuck in a 2-party system.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-31 01:09pm

Hee hee hee.

Perot's VP joined the debates in '92. His eyes looked a lot like ping-pong balls most of the night from footage I've seen.

Yarcamos · Post by **Yarcamos** » 2004-10-31 02:19pm

Stormbringer wrote:Hence why they were excluded; they didn't want to have a debate. It might as well have been Dueling Press Conferences for all the debating they actually did.

Regardless of what conspiracy theories or logic you are trying to use, the reason they were excluded is because they were not garnering enough support in national polls, pure and simple. Is there a reason people find this so hard to understand?

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2004-10-31 02:21pm

Eh, 2 party system has pros and cons. On the one hand, it can be limiting, but on the other, it can streamline government by forcing dispatate groups who wouldn't normaly get along to compramise to get things done, (see the New Deal Coalition). While I'm certainly not going to say that the two party system is better than any concievable alternative, it does have its advantages and, for the moment, we need to understand that it is one of the unfortunate constant of the American political system. This is partly due to the nature of third parties and the hereditary distaste Americans feel for factionalism in Govt. Of course the factionalisim is rampant, but the idea is, if we can get most of these factions to agree on some baselines, we can run a country. As for third parties, they tend to be narrower in focus, one issue, or extremist (See Green, Socialist, Prohibition). Or they are too moderate to gain enough votes (See Libertarien). They do however serve a purpose of adjusting policy within the main parties as said parties attempt to absorb the third party.

Case in point is Ralph Nader and support thereof. While it is true that Nader is no longer running under the Green party, he still espouses heavily Green ideas. What Nader supporters hope for is not a Nader victory, but a shattering loss for John Kerry. They hope Kerry will lose, and that when Democratic strategists look at why Kerry lost, they'll count how many votes went for Nader, and adjust their platforms and policies to make the Democratic main agenda more appealing to the left. That's just one example.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-10-31 02:45pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:It's sad that the US is stuck in a 2-party system.

Winner-take-all elections and an elected chief executive virtually guarantee a two party system. You'd need to restructure the entire goverment to change it.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-31 02:55pm

Also remember that Third Parties can have strong effects. Nader and Perot both proved that much, even if preference for major parties makes even local selection of Third Parties a poor choice (a Third Party leader must often join coalitions antithetical to his or her cause).

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-31 03:08pm

RedImperator wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:It's sad that the US is stuck in a 2-party system.
Winner-take-all elections and an elected chief executive virtually guarantee a two party system. You'd need to restructure the entire goverment to change it.

So in other words, it's never going to happen.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-10-31 03:11pm

It would help if the Thrid Parties didn't spring into action only for Predidental elections. Come on use some stratgey get control over some states and fight for some Rep and Senate seats.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-31 03:24pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:It's sad that the US is stuck in a 2-party system.
Winner-take-all elections and an elected chief executive virtually guarantee a two party system. You'd need to restructure the entire goverment to change it.
So in other words, it's never going to happen.

Maybe, maybe not. If the vote keeps coming down the the electoral vote and not the popular we might well see a constitutional amendmant for proportional electoral votes. It could happen even with out for that matter.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-31 03:31pm

Yarcamos wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Hence why they were excluded; they didn't want to have a debate. It might as well have been Dueling Press Conferences for all the debating they actually did.
Regardless of what conspiracy theories or logic you are trying to use, the reason they were excluded is because they were not garnering enough support in national polls, pure and simple. Is there a reason people find this so hard to understand?

If you really believe that I have some ocean front property for you in Colorado.

Third parties have been included in the debates before. Oddly enough it was when Third Party candidates starting muscling their way in that they got cut. Funny that. And it's even funnier but there was precious little debating going on. Both sides did their best to turn it into just another scripted event, having a real debate would hurt them and they know it. You can claim it's all a conspiracy but any one with their eyes open can see that both the DNC and RNC want the debates to themselves and to turn it into another scripted event like the conventions.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-31 10:24pm

It's a two-party system, and the third-party guys can afford to be more direct and upfront about their positions than the two relevant candidates. Seriously, if wiggling around the point didn't work in terms of garnering votes, politicians wouldn't do it.

The only way I can see an alternative party emerging as a significant player is if it forms through moderates from either the Democrats or Republicans breaking away to form their own party.

Yarcamos · Post by **Yarcamos** » 2004-10-31 10:27pm

Durandal wrote:It's a two-party system, and the third-party guys can afford to be more direct and upfront about their positions than the two relevant candidates. Seriously, if wiggling around the point didn't work in terms of garnering votes, politicians wouldn't do it.

The only way I can see an alternative party emerging as a significant player is if it forms through moderates from either the Democrats or Republicans breaking away to form their own party.

Good point in all actuality. Not sure if it's feasible, but if they get a leader like John McCain to lead them, you never know.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-10-31 11:01pm

Durandal wrote:It's a two-party system, and the third-party guys can afford to be more direct and upfront about their positions than the two relevant candidates. Seriously, if wiggling around the point didn't work in terms of garnering votes, politicians wouldn't do it.

The only way I can see an alternative party emerging as a significant player is if it forms through moderates from either the Democrats or Republicans breaking away to form their own party.

The last time an alternative party won a presidential election was 1860--the Republicans, as it turns out. And they only got their shot because 1) the Whig Party, the former second major party, had collapsed ten years prior, and 2) the Democratic ticket was split.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-31 11:20pm

Wow, even the Constitution Party candidate raised valid points? Isn't he a flaming fundie? Hell he has to be; the Murch family wouldn't support him if he wasn't...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-31 11:51pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Wow, even the Constitution Party candidate raised valid points? Isn't he a flaming fundie? Hell he has to be; the Murch family wouldn't support him if he wasn't...

Even a broken clock is correct at least twice a day.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-01 02:49am

You can claim it's all a conspiracy but any one with their eyes open can see that both the DNC and RNC want the debates to themselves and to turn it into another scripted event like the conventions.

You need 15% of the popular vote to get into the debates. Ross Perot managed to do this in 92, incidentally.