Of course he should be in the debates. At least there would BE a debate.
Read his stand on the issues. The man makes some good points.
Peace,
mangeorge
Pretty skimpy choice there. I’m told to chose between vanilla or chocolate when what I really want is cookies and cream. Personally, I like neither Gore and Bush and do not feel like I have a choice in this election. I’d like to see the debates opened up to other parties. I’m even willing to watch crackpots if that’s what I have to suffer through to have an expanded choice.
The way the media covers the election ensures that a third-party will never have a chance at the presidency. A debate would be the only chance to see all of our choices all at once and have a real choice.
Honestly, what would it hurt to see at least one debate where all the people on the ticket get to interact?
We aren’t choosing between vanilla and chocolate. We are chhosing between vanilla and French vanilla.
Kudos for Buchanan for picking a vp candidate who happen to be a Black female, although she is one of the most conservative persons this side of Clarence Thomas.
Several folks have talked about the Reps and Dems as being unfair in having this huge power base. The parties are discussed as if they are evil Dr. X’s which control by virtue of their money and secret mind-control weapons.
Well, ok, that’s true. But more importantly, the two big parties got to where they are because they directly represent the vast majority of Americans. Like it or not, America through it’s voting has defined the Reps and Dems as their representatives and defined them as their political process.
When you say that the Reps/Dems are holding Nader out of the debates, what you are really saying is that the American people are holding Nader out of the debate. And frankly, that’s just fine with me.
If nothing else, having Nader in the debates would probably make the other two candidates do their homework more on some of the Green Party’s issues, and they would probably make more promises to placate us Naderites.
Thanks for providing that petition sign-up site.
Then why have polls said that 60-70% of Americans want Nader in the debates?
The smartest thing Nader and Buchanan could do would be to hold a series of debates themselves, to which Bush and Gore would also be invited. When Bush and Gore don’t show up, they should have a couple of vacant podiums reflecting their absence.
Seems to me like this would be pretty good television. Some station would carry it, I can guarantee you.
It couldn’t do anything but help both Nader and Buchanan by giving them additional exposure. You can be sure the print media would also pick up on the “empty chair” angle, meaning even more publicity.
They should start with this immediately, and then by the time the other debates roll around, the stunt might have increased Nader’s and Buchanan’s numbers to the point that they would have to be included.
Bill H the biggest problem with that is half of Americans dont vote therefore both parties are represenatitive of a bad system and nothing more.
I think Nader is electable… if someone shoots Gore and Bush at the debates then Nader will have a good chance at winning.
The problem with allowing Nader into the debates is that you have no intellectually honest way of keeping the rest of the better known third-party candidates out. You have two people running as Reform Party candidates–the Reform Party got a significant percentage of the vote in the last two presidential elections. You have the Libertarian Party, which in terms of registration is bigger than than Nader’s Green Party. For that matter, there are all sorts of other parties out there. If electability isn’t the standard, then you have to do a lot of squirming to justify drawing the line such that Nader is included but the rest are not. (I don’t find the 5% federal funding cutoff particularly compelling–that’s just a line drawn by the Democrats and Republicans to make it look like they are being fair, when in reality no such thing was ever intended.) And if there is no such line, then the debates would be a complete farce. (As opposed to the partial farce they are to begin with.)
I like the idea of third parties gaining enough clout to at least scare the Ds and Rs into behaving. And as a personal matter I dislike Al Gore enough that I’d like to see him get screwed, which is what allowing Nader into the debates would do. But I can’t see any way to argue for bringing Nader into the debates that isn’t as exclusionary as the current policy–just revised to make an exception for a person many of those in this thread support.
MysterEcks makes a good point, and this is a problem that must be resolved.
I am reminded of a local debate I attended in the late 1980s. The specific issue at hand was the garbage crisis on Long Island. There were 5 candidates debating: the Democrat, the Republican, 2 other smaller parties (can’t remember, sorry) and the candidate for the Right to Life party. It was an excellent debate, very informative, and very very lively. The problem was that in response to every single question, the Right to Life guy talked about abortion. For example, the moderator would ask a question dealing with discrepancies in the recycling statistics presented by the different parties. Each of the other 4 debaters would answer, and then the Right to Life guy would say something like “Those statistics are not important. What about the statistic that the babies aborted each year would fill Yankee Stadium TO THE TOP! Yankee Stadium filled with DEAD BABIES, TO THE TOP!”
Now, I am not saying all right-to-lifers are like this. This guy was an obvious nut-job. But it illustrated to me the dangers of allowing a representative of a one-issue party into a debate.
Fortunately, neither the Green Party nor the Libertarian Party is a one-issue party.
Look: George Bush would win if the election were held today, and IMHO he will win anyway. So doesn’t that make Al Gore unelectable? So why have Al Gore in the debates (other than the obvious problem of Bush not having anyone to debate)? I think anyone who gets on the ballot in enough states to win should be in the debate – but I’d be willing to compromise at a candidate who is on all 50 ballots. That probably is not going to end up being some wacko because a whole lot of people will have already signed a petition to get that person on the ballot.
The more the merrier. If you did get some “wacko” you’d at least have ratings to compete with the WWF.
I started to write this as a wiseacre joke post, and realized there’s a serious point to it:
The rule for being allowed in the (Great) Debates is pretty simple: Don’t be a jerk.
Of course, on some interpretations this means there would be no presidential debates. 
I would be interested in seeing what the candidates of the two major parties have to say to each other. I would also be interested in seeing what reputable third party candidates have to say, both in their own behalfs and vis-a-vis the major candidates. And I recognize the problem of distinguishing “serious” minor candidates from, e.g., the Spoofe Bo Diddley Party’s nominee (no offense, Spoofer!).
The 5% cutoff is probably a fairly reasonable line, despite the fact that the major parties are using it to stifle opposition. But who determines the 5%? How do you produce a poll with reasonable objectivity? Most national polls I’ve seen make presuppositions that are not acceptable, and selecting one as “the official national poll” for debates and/or funding would be inimical to competitive polling.
The “on the ballot in all 50 states” rule is unworkable. At present the state I live in has only three recognized parties: Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian. I would venture to guess that there is at least one state where the Libertarians are not on the ballot. Ergo, only R & D are eligible. (Nader lost his court fight here to get on the ballot.)
Another possibility is to allow only parties which have elected candidates to statewide office or a House seat somewhere in the country. This allows the Reform Party in, thanks to Jesse V., and, interestingly, the Socialists (Vermont). IIRC, there is a Green holding state office in California. Would this fit the apparent general consensus that the debates should include third parties but only “significant” ones?
Then you would guess wrong.
The Libertarian Party is the nation’s third largest political party (in memberships) and has never failed to place a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, despite the incredible hoops they must jump through to do so.
You were going to do some research at one point, Poly. What happened?
Oh, Libertarian beat me to it about the 50-state ballot access. Did Nader make it on all 50?
I think the standard should be being on enough ballots to win the Electoral College vote. That would mean Bush, Gore, Browne, & Nader, plus possibly whoever real the Reform candidate is (last I heard there were two factions claiming that).
> The smartest thing Nader and Buchanan could do would be to hold a series of debates themselves, to which Bush and Gore would also be invited. When Bush and Gore don’t show up, they should have a couple of vacant podiums reflecting their absence.
I saw a debate like this either in '92 or '96 between a group of third-party candidates on C-SPAN. It was disrupted by a series of Lyndon LaRouche supporters. A debate like this is a good idea, but the problem is that C-SPAN is probably the only station that would show it, so it wouldn’t be seen by much of the general public.
No. He will not be on the ballot in Georgia, IIRC.
Re: A Nader/Buchanan dabate…
I disagree. Nader and Buchanan have enough notoriety to attract significant press coverage (unlike the relative unknowns who participated in the debates you described). In addition, there is considerable controversy this year about whether Nader should be invited, and you know how the press loves controversy…
So, do you actually believe that or do you just expect us to? Now I think I see why you’re so opposed to Nader even being given a chance…He’s not a doublespeaker like your pals Al and George.
The Washington Post had an interesting article on Gary Aldersmith in the Outlook section on Sunday.
Who is Gary Aldersmith, you ask? Why, he was an independent candidate for President who received 5% of the vote in a poll.
Unfortunately, Aldersmith did not actually exist. His name was an amalgam of pollsters involved in this poll. But for whatever reason- margin of error, the fact that his name was mentioned last, disgust with the other candidates, etc.- he received 5% of the vote in that poll. Other polls taken with ficticious names have also shown that anyone- regardless of, say, actual existence- can get 5% of the vote in polls.
My vote – 1) if someone has enough support in the polls that he would receive matching funds next election (5%), he/she should be in the debate. So, Nader’s in.
- If a party receives matching funds, then their candidate should be in the debates. So, whoever the “official” Reform Party nominated/nominates is in.
But hey, I’m an inclusionary kind of guy, so I could be wrong. For example, I sign all political petitions to get something or someone on the ballot, even if I completely disagree with it. I think the choices should be available.
Sua
Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, is hovering between 1 and 3 percent.
Seems about right.
Dr. J
How about Jello Biafra instead of Ralph Nader…now, that would be an interesting debate to watch.