I think most know my answer. If so let's hear why and if not, let's hear the reasons for that.

 

I think it would expose the American public to candidates that may have ideologies they share. Also, 3rd party candidates are much more likely to hold D and R's accountable. Plus it would make for a much more lively and "true" debate!

I Love It!!! Put the Libertarian Party in!

I think it would be a great idea.

Count me as a supporter of the idea. Obvious problem, who to include?

Why aren't they included?

I'd like to see them in the debate.

Until there are either more viable political parties, or none at all, I honestly believe we are going to continue to have sub-standard choices for the forseeable future. Money and power has become SO concentrated within the current 2 party system that the creation of any additional viable parties will be very difficult to achieve. Too bad the FTC doesn't have the power to break up political monopolies.

Why aren't they included?

I believe it has to do with polling numbers. But then again there aren't many polls that include 3rd party candidates. Also if they were included in national debates, they would gain more national recognition, thus improving their polling numbers.

 

I know some states (KY included) changed their ballot access laws post-Perot, I think the debate committee's might have done the same, but I may be wrong here.

It makes no sense why they wouldn't be in

It makes no sense why they wouldn't be in

 

Because we "think" we are in the land of the free but we are not, think about it, the media is will either think one way or the other conservative or liberal, (fox and cnn), therefore since they control the media do you think that would hear about another option.

 

So the main question is what do we do about it, time and time again I hear how the two main canadates from two parties do not meet the people's needs. Well, IMHO, find the canadate that meets your needs the most and vote for that person, that is all that we really can do.

 

Now people will tell you that you might be wasting your vote, but I say your voice matters, no matter if it does not win, so be it, but at least you can sleep well at night.

 

 

God Bless the USA and may He continue to shower his blessings on me and to the people of BGP.:ylsuper:

 

 

p.s. vote Bob Barr:D

It makes no sense why they wouldn't be in

And screw up Obama and McCain's talking points??? :scared:

And screw up Obama and McCain's talking points??? :scared:

Exactly!!:thumb:

I do not want to see thrid party candidates who are not viable in the debates.

 

If there were more debates than the current three presidential debates and one VP debate, I would not mind seeing some third party candidates participating. However, as the election approaches we need more debates only between (or among) candidates who have a realistic chance of being elected.

 

Ross Perot earned his place at the debates in 1992 and other third party candidates can do the same.

Until there are either more viable political parties, or none at all, I honestly believe we are going to continue to have sub-standard choices for the forseeable future. Money and power has become SO concentrated within the current 2 party system that the creation of any additional viable parties will be very difficult to achieve. Too bad the FTC doesn't have the power to break up political monopolies.

 

 

I agree with this. It's what I've been saying for years. I think that all candidates should be invited to participate in all debates. The quickest, most efficient way to see a viable 3rd party emerge is to allow them to participate in the debates.

I do not want to see thrid party candidates who are not viable in the debates.

 

If there were more debates than the current three presidential debates and one VP debate, I would not mind seeing some third party candidates participating. However, as the election approaches we need more debates only between (or among) candidates who have a realistic chance of being elected.

 

Ross Perot earned his place at the debates in 1992 and other third party candidates can do the same.

Ross Perot earned his place because he is a billionaire and was able to spend enough of his own money to get his name out there. He was wasting money for ballot access, but it didn't really matter because he had a virtual unlimited supply. Plus, many states changed their access laws post-Perot, making 3rd party candidates waste even more time and money.

 

Until the actual election if you are on enough state ballots to recieve 270 electoral college votes you can truly win...so wouldn't that make you viable enough to be in the debate? They let everyone in the primary debates why not the big one?

 

Finally, I think the American public isn't going to learn anything about McCain or Obama they didn't already know by these "debates", lets make them real debates with people who aren't afraid to say how they really feel.