Would you like to see Gary Johnson in the presidential debates?

reply to post by Wookiep

Dear Wookiep,

Nice to have you join in.

If a candidate is on the ballots, they should be in the debates, period.

Ok, in addition to Romney and Obama, the following indiviuals have obtained access to at least one state's ballot (according to Wiki):

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson, Peta Lindsay, Tom Hoefling, Roseanne Barr, Stewart Alexander, James Harris, Tom Stevens, Merlin Miller, Andre Barnett, Jerry White, Jim Carlson, Jack Fellure, Will Christensen, Richard Duncan, Randall Terry, Sheila Tittle, Jeff Boss, Dean Morstad, Jill Reed, and Jerry Litzel.

No matter how much fun it would be, setting up a debate like that would be "Rocket Science."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I see where you're going with that and really it's on a road to no-where, although clever that you've presented a long list of names. You're saying that Gary Johnson being on the ballot in all 50 states (3 in "litigation") is irrelevant, probably without even realizing it. How many of those others listed are on the ballot in say 40 states +? I think you know the errors of your logic and are just entertaining yourself here.

reply to post by hawkiye

Dear hawkiye,

Hi again. It's getting to be late here, so I might have to cut this shorter than I'd like.

Ron Paul easily has the Support of these two but the media blacks him out or attacks him.

Fine, but unless he takes over someone else's party and runs under that party's banner, his only chance is a write-in campaign. It is too late in the campaign to start a new third party. It's a question of the states' filing deadlines. Those are his only two choices. Which do you recommend?

Now if we're talking about the Libertarians, I have never seen any poll, or test, or statement, that people who might be consideredat least partial Libertarians are more than 20% of the population.

Let's say that Johnson shows up on the stage and gets the endorsement of the Pope, or the Queen of England, or does something incredible, will he get the 1/3 of the vote needed for election? Libertarians have never gotten even 2% of the votes for their candidate. What will make this different? And if anyone is relying on the press to swing the nation to his side in two months, well, there's not much I can say. Just, the press won't.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Wookiep

Dear Wookiep,

My apologies, I misunderstood you to say that if a candidate was on a ballot, then they should be in the debate. Ok, my bad. But are you telling me that a candidate has to have a certain level of support, before he can get into the debates? Were you suggesting 40 states? Or baisng it on their polling level?

I wasn't planning on trying to decide exactly how much support a candidate must have in order to appear, but it seems we agree that there must be some level that has to be reached. We may differ on where the line is to be drawn, otherwise, I suppose we could hash it out if you really wanted to.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


To be fair, I actually used the word "ballots" in the sentence from me you quoted. Regardless, I think you are confusing the matter on purpose, it's rather humorous actually, so keep going. I do think those other candidates should have a voice. I don't make the rules but if I did, those candidates who have only got on the ballot in one state should at least get a televised debate in that state, as they earned a spot in that state.

In this case, we have three candidates on the ballot in the majority of the states (actually, I think I read Obama might not even be on all 50 ballots). I'll even throw in Jill Stein since she's got decent support and Rosanne Barr for entertainment value. He'll, pick 5 more and we could actuallly see some REAL debates. Wasn't there 9 originally in the Republican debates? What's the big deal, they earned it. You would rather hush them all up for the establishment, and that's pretty selfish of you, Charles.

In other related news, look at this:

Gary Johnson Files Anti-Trust Lawsuit To Get Into Presidential Debates

Johnson is asking the courts to force the CPD to allow for all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes to have a spot on the debate state.

www.buzzfeed.com...

reply to post by Wookiep

Dear Wookiep,

As I mentioned, it's getting late here, well after midnight, so I'm going to shut off. Pick it up tomorrow?

A couple of questions, that I don't have answers to and you might. What's a good number of debaters to have, so that they each have time to develop their answers on complex issues? The nine that the Republcans had didn't work well at all. I don't know but I'm guessing a maximum of four, if that.

And what general measure to we use to choose them? Polling numbers? Vote count in the last election? I'm less excited about the number of states that the candidate is eligible in. But we can talk about it if you'd like.

Do you really think I'm part of the Establishment, or the Elite, or the one per centers? Sorry, not even remotely close. I may be a bottom one per center, but if not, I'm a heck of a lot closer to that than I am to the top. But thank you, I'll probably smile all night over that.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Ok Charles, we can compromise and go with the top 4 in the debates, although if there are more on the ballot in the majority of the states, I'm not sure that would be fair either, do you?

It seems Gary Johnsons suggestion equates to common sense pretty well so maybe you can compromise with this on your #3 question:

Johnson is asking the courts to force the CPD to allow for all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes to have a spot on the debate state.

www.buzzfeed.com...

I dunno, that seems to make too much sense, not sure if you'll agree with that.

And BTW, I never claimed that you were a part of the establishment/elite/1%ers, only that you agree with them on this.

Oh and good night.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Dear hawkiye,

Hi again. It's getting to be late here, so I might have to cut this shorter than I'd like.

Ron Paul easily has the Support of these two but the media blacks him out or attacks him.

Fine, but unless he takes over someone else's party and runs under that party's banner, his only chance is a write-in campaign. It is too late in the campaign to start a new third party. It's a question of the states' filing deadlines. Those are his only two choices. Which do you recommend?

Now if we're talking about the Libertarians, I have never seen any poll, or test, or statement, that people who might be consideredat least partial Libertarians are more than 20% of the population.

Let's say that Johnson shows up on the stage and gets the endorsement of the Pope, or the Queen of England, or does something incredible, will he get the 1/3 of the vote needed for election? Libertarians have never gotten even 2% of the votes for their candidate. What will make this different? And if anyone is relying on the press to swing the nation to his side in two months, well, there's not much I can say. Just, the press won't.

With respect,
Charles1952

You keep missing the boat entirely here. The media choses your candidates for you. If the libertarians got the same kind of free publicity as the demopublicans they would easily be a viable party. You seem to believe in the fantasy that people just aren't interested. Most people barely even know they exist because the media will not give them the time of day. The media is bought and paid for to protect the demopublicans monopoly on power. it really is that simple.

I think he should be allowed in the debates, that he is not is a bunch of BS!

I not a fan of him, but he should be allowed

If anybody signs the petition, you'd see a pretty vast list of individuals that advocate the debates be opened up to somebody that is on the ballot in all 50 states.

reply to post by Wookiep

Dear Wookiep,

I did have a good night, thank you. I trust yours went well, also.

I've just run into a problem. I don't know where we can call a halt to the candidate list. Let's assume that, because Johnson in on the ballots in enough states, he could win the Presidency. But, so is Jill Stein, so she has to get in on it, too. Fair's fair, right?

But look at what that does. With four candidates, 136 Electoral college votes could win the Presidency. (You only need a majority, remember?) With only 136 votes needed, we now have to include Virgil Goode, and Rocky Anderson, for a total now of six candidates on the stage. After all, they're on enough ballots to give them a win. But with six candidates, you could win with just 91 votes. And on and on it goes.

Ok Charles, we can compromise and go with the top 4 in the debates, although if there are more on the ballot in the majority of the states, I'm not sure that would be fair either, do you?

Very tempting, but my problem is still fairness and limits. Right now we have a limit of two candidates, and Johnson is saying it's only right that they expand it to three. Say we do that. Then Jill Stein says, you have a limit of three, it's only right that you expand it to four. Virgil Goode is number five, what argument do we use to keep him out of the debates? Sorry, rules are rules?

I think someone will have to do one heck of a job of persuasion to get me to accept the number of ballots you're on as a sufficient credential for the debate. Besides, remember that this is not governmental, they can do whatever they want. If we prove, 100%, that it's unfair but they don't want to do it, it doesn't happen. I think a stronger case can be made by using the polling numbers or the turnout in the previous election.

(Oh, and the Gary Johnson law suit? Really unlikely. He's claiming "restraint of trade," and restricting the "marketplace of ideas." Neither of which makes much sense in this case.)


With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles you defiantly deserve a star for that. I was for Garry being in just to stir things up but now that you explained things out I think this would be a great idea. A third fourth or even an eighth candidate would actually make this a race and we could wind up with a decent Potus. I now know why they will not do it. This would be a nightmare for the two party systems.
I know you were debating against it but I think you just made a case for this happening.

Regards Grim

reply to post by Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

Thank you, you've lifted my spirits. We should look for truth and value in any idea, and explore paths convenient or not.

But I think we may be talking about two different things. Are you suggesting that at the start of the campaign there should have been more candidates? Or are you suggesting that we somehow force the PDC to accomodate another eight candidates? Or are you suggesting something else? Perhaps changing to a European-style, parliamentry, multi-party, system?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I can’t say I know much about European Gov. so I don’t dare try to make the comparison. As for the other I can’t see any way to force the PDC but it would be nice. From what you described in your previous post I looked at it in a glass half full kind of way. I do think of America as a capitalist society that promotes competition where the odds are the best product will come out on top why can’t this work for presidential candidates as well?

Let there be more names on the ballet let them all be heard and let the people decide. When you were describing what would happen if they were all allowed an equal voice I couldn’t help but think that this is exactly what the founders had in mind.

Then again I could be overthinking things I am just going by gut instinct and what feels right I am not claiming to have a vast knowledge on the legality of our political system. I am saying your argument against such a thing seems to make a great case for it as well.

With regards Grim

reply to post by Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

Thank you, we may be on our way to starting something here. I'm a little unclear on the details, but maybe we can work this out.

Assume you start a campaign for the Presidency two months from now. You can join an existing party, start a new one, or just run as an independent. (Further assume there are at least a hundred other people doing the same thing.) Obviously you want people to vote for you, but they don't know what you believe, let alone who you are. So, we need money for advertising. How do we get it? From the government, individuals, or both?

Now I hit a problem. The Supreme Court announced back in the 1970s that a political contibution was protected political speech, so unless we change those rulings we have to be able to let individuals donate money. Do we add government money to that? I suppose we'd have to, to give every candidate an equal shot. But at the start of this campaign, everybody thought Obama was going to raise a billion dollars. So, I suppose we have to make sure Romney has a billion, and you have a billion. And I suppose we'd have to give it to the other 100 wannabe candidates. Heck, now we're even more broke, and the TV networks are just watching the money rush in.

Maybe the problem is too many candidates. What if we start a year early, break them into twenty groups of five, and have some kind of elections within the twenty groups? Then the twenty winners break into four groups of five, and those four winners get into a campaign with the "big boys." Or maybe the "big boys have to start at the bottom with everybody else, but they'd have huge campaign funds. Unfortunately for the citizens, that would mean we'd have to watch 25 national presidential campaigns, and the last campaign would have five candidate's ads running.

I like your idea a lot, I just don't know how to make it work. You're right, the founders didn't like parties, but then they didn't want the people to vote for the President either. They wanted to leave up to the states the method of choosing the electors, then the electors would choose the President and Vice-President.

Again, thank you very much for bringing up this approach. Very interesting.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I see exactly where you are going with this and I agree. I like to think of myself as a realist to some degree.

My idea starting with the problem of candidates for this election (I assume you were throwing out a hypothetical for this election as well) would be to take those candidates that have already earned some support from there states there would need to be a cutoff where I do not know. I would think the ones that already have the support of a party like Republican, Democrat, Green, libertarian, and I am not sure how many others exist possibly hundreds but I think we could establish some reasonable guidelines. The danger would be taking things so far that we could fall into the same political trap that the country is currently in. That would be a headache in and of it.

I am begging to see how impossible this would be for this election but I would like to keep going out of curiosity.

As for funding that would be a nightmare. I am thinking back and wasn’t there a bill passed or at least one was on the table that dealt with this issue. The funding was nowhere near 1 billion and I would be really against that amount but it was a reasonable amount if remember correctly.

Without being able to change some rules in congress dealing with PACs, SuperPAC's, corporate personhood, and probably more if you were not part of the big two R and D you would be outspent in no time. If this were to work there would have to be a push to get many of those rules changed.

If we could have elections become more about debates and less about commercials I think some version of this would have a chance. I now see that anything this year would be an exercise in futility but maybe there is some hope for the future. It would require equal debating time and more debates away from the private media possibly on a government operated station if it were to have any chance.

One thing is very clear to me is that the system is designed in such a way that with the regulations primarily dealing with fundraising that the two party system has a stranglehold on our politics. I always knew PACs were bad for us but now I see they are completely destructive to politics.

It would take a lot of work but I think with a lot more thought and a ton of support that something akin to this could work. Right now my mind is drawing blank but I will sleep on it tonight and maybe we can continue this tomorrow.

With regards Grim

reply to post by Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

Good thoughts! Let me buy this round.

I was overlooking something when I suggested that the hundred candidates be divide into 20 groups of five. Let me try another idea. (And no, I can't even see the box from here.) I forgot we have states! (or at least I didn't think of them when I was writing) What would happen if, maybe two or three years before the election, when everybody is voting for the House of Representatives anyway, we told the 100 candidates: "You pick three states you think you can do well in and we'll put you on those ballots. forget ballot qualification, just go out there and sell yourself as a Presidential possible."

Based on how they do in those elections, when their only competition is other third-party candidates, we pick the top two or three or however many, and they can start running for the national election.

Problems, sure. All the numbers would have to be flexible, and how do we compare the candidate that gets 60% of New England to one who gets 60% in the Southwest? Also, every candidate that sees himself as more liberal would run in traditionally liberal states, and the reverse for conservatives.

I hoping you can either destroy this thought or build on it. I can get weird when I tell my imagination to get busy.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Something closer to the box. Perhaps candidates could align themselves as either Orange or Green (or some other name not politically significant. They could divide into maybe four groups. Come up with some broad philosophy that covers everybody in one of those four groups (Democrat and Republican included) and let each group compete for one of the spots on the ballot. (Yes, it could be five or six groups.) - C -

Libertarianism is anar.....

mwhahaha

Anyone is free to set up a debate. I'm sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will participate in some form of debate before the Presidential election. It may not be on TV, but they will be in a debate.

You can't force the TV networks to cover certain events, they are private organizations and can cover whatever they like.