Gary Johnson suing to be included in debates (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

Goode is going to win one small portion of Virginia. He is not going to win the state. And of course since the House is either Republican or Democrat he has no shot winning anything tossed there. Do you actually have a workable scenario or is this it?

There's no "workable scenario" where Johnson wins either. That's the point. Johnson is saying, "I'm a real candidate, Goode is a fringe candidate, so I should be in the debates and he shouldn't." But Johnson's candidacy is much more similar to Goode's than it is to Romney's.

Actually there is. He is on enough state ballots that if he were to win he could get 270. And of course his isn't polling well, pollsters don't even ask about him. Hard to get to 15% when the handicappers won't list your horse.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "workable." If it means "there's at least some tiny insignificant chance of this happening", then I'd say both Goode and Johnson victories are workable. If it means "realistic", then I's say both the Johnson and Goode scenarios are unworkable.Yes, pegging the debates to polls where they don't even ask about Johnson is frustrating, but there have been a handful of polls that have included him and I don't think he's ever topped 5%. So it seems rather unlikely he'd reach the 15% threshold even if he were included in every poll.

Well they are only just starting to include him. Only been in the last couple of weeks or so I think. And they only seem to be doing it to see how many votes it costs Mitt. It seems to cost him several percentage points. So I get why the Republican party doesn't want him on stage. It doesn't really hurt Obama's numbers but Johnson would force him to look like a moderate Republican so I understand why the Democratic party doesn't want him on stage. What I don't understand is what possible reason voters have for not wanting him on stage.

 

[Rayderr]

Why is "number of state ballots" a useful metric to use when deciding who should be in a debate?

Seems better than the metric of having to have an R or D attached to your candidacy.

That's not the metric. The 15% thing is.

Which leads us back to what myself and NCC have said. The national polls are not listing Johnson as an option nor are they accepting him as an answer. So how's he supposed to get 15%?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

The public doesn't need to hear more words from Obama and Romney. The public needs to hear more meaningful words from Obama and Romney.Including someone like Gary Johnson who would challenge both candidates on stuff they can't effectively challenge either other on (since they're both lousy at them) would help.

Obama has been a huge disappointment on civil liberties issues, but Romney can't challenge him effectively because he'd probably be even worse. Johnson, however, could clobber him.

Romney is really lacking a coherent budgetary or fiscal plan, but Obama can't challenge him effectively because — look at the current deficit. Johnson, however, could clobber him.

Johnson could also put pressure on both candidates on stuff like the War on Drugs.

An Obama-Romney debate would be far, far better if it included Johnson as well — even if we really cared only about Obama's and Romney's views.

Duh.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The 15% thing was set up by the commission which is comprised of dems and repubs. They obviously set that up to exclude other candidates. And if the day comes where a third party is consistently getting 15%, it would not be the least bit shocking to see them change the rules to make it even more restrictive.

Right, just like Johnson wants the debates to include him but to be restrictive enough so Virgil Goode can't participate. Virgil Goode probably thinks he should be in the debates but the Communist Party guy shouldn't. The Communist Party guy probably thinks he should be in the debates but the "Rent is Too Damn High" guy shouldn't. I understand the motivations here. But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

Yes. The more these guys get challenged and pressed, the better. We've heard the robotic talking points.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Which leads us back to what myself and NCC have said. The national polls are not listing Johnson as an option nor are they accepting him as an answer. So how's he supposed to get 15%?

Yeah, I addressed this earlier. The polls that have included him all top out at like 5% support. So, yes, he has fewer opportunities to reach the threshold by virtue of not being included in most polls. But there's no reason to think he would be anywhere near 15% in any of them if he was included. And I suspect more polls would include him if he was getting more support in the polls that he was in.

 

[roadkill1292]

It's going to come as a surprise to a bunch of other western nations that having only two parties to choose from is the best form of governance.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The more these guys get challenged and pressed, the better. We've heard the robotic talking points.

Well, in theory this could be accomplished by better debate rules and/or better moderators. The problem is that there's no legal requirement that candidates participate in any debates in the first place. So there's some negotiation involved in the process and candidates get the debates they want.

 

[the moops]

Which leads us back to what myself and NCC have said. The national polls are not listing Johnson as an option nor are they accepting him as an answer. So how's he supposed to get 15%?

Yeah, I addressed this earlier. The polls that have included him all top out at like 5% support. So, yes, he has fewer opportunities to reach the threshold by virtue of not being included in most polls. But there's no reason to think he would be anywhere near 15% in any of them if he was included. And I suspect more polls would include him if he was getting more support in the polls that he was in.

You seem to like the 15% thing. Why?Does a guy with 15% in the polls have a realistic shot at winning? How about 20%? 14%?

 

[roadkill1292]

Which leads us back to what myself and NCC have said. The national polls are not listing Johnson as an option nor are they accepting him as an answer. So how's he supposed to get 15%?

Yeah, I addressed this earlier. The polls that have included him all top out at like 5% support. So, yes, he has fewer opportunities to reach the threshold by virtue of not being included in most polls. But there's no reason to think he would be anywhere near 15% in any of them if he was included. And I suspect more polls would include him if he was getting more support in the polls that he was in.

You seem to like the 15% thing. Why?Does a guy with 15% in the polls have a realistic shot at winning? How about 20%? 14%?

Yes, good question, fats. What's really driving your line of questioning here?

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

 

[jonessed]

Why is "number of state ballots" a useful metric to use when deciding who should be in a debate?

Seems better than the metric of having to have an R or D attached to your candidacy.

That's not the metric. The 15% thing is.

The 15% thing was set up by the commission which is comprised of dems and repubs. They obviously set that up to exclude other candidates. And if the day comes where a third party is consistently getting 15%, it would not be the least bit shocking to see them change the rules to make it even more restrictive.It is ridiculous that the commission is headed by two former chairs of the democratic and republican committees. They aren't even trying to appear non-partisan.

If they suspected someone might reach that 15% I bet they change it anyway. It's a scam and the media isn't going to put a spotlight on it because they want access to the politicians.I consider myself a conservative, but I have never voted for a Republican or Democrat presidential candidate. I've even voted for Nader twice. I wish more people could see the damage the two-party system does to our country. We have basically handcuffed our ability to come up with practical ways of solving our most pressing problems.

 

[timschochet]

It's going to come as a surprise to a bunch of other western nations that having only two parties to choose from is the best form of governance.

Why should it? We've essentially made this argument for years, and it's a good one. One of the major reasons that Greece has not been able to resolve it's economic crisis is that too many coalitions are necessary among all of the small parties. Extremists are given a level of importance they do not deserve.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Which leads us back to what myself and NCC have said. The national polls are not listing Johnson as an option nor are they accepting him as an answer. So how's he supposed to get 15%?

Yeah, I addressed this earlier. The polls that have included him all top out at like 5% support. So, yes, he has fewer opportunities to reach the threshold by virtue of not being included in most polls. But there's no reason to think he would be anywhere near 15% in any of them if he was included. And I suspect more polls would include him if he was getting more support in the polls that he was in.

You seem to like the 15% thing. Why?Does a guy with 15% in the polls have a realistic shot at winning? How about 20%? 14%?

I don't particularly like the 15% thing. I think the number is too high, especially for the first debate. And I recognize the circularity of a lot of this -- If Johnson were included in the debates, he might get more support, so keeping him out of the debates is a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I do think that if we want the debates to be worthwhile it's important not to have a debate stage filled with 10 candidates like the early GOP primary debates this year. And I think that the criteria for inclusion have to be somehow related to the likelihood of winning. The 270 thing seems to be completely self-serving by Johnson and with no clear principle behind it.I think in another thread where we discussed this I proposed escalating the requirements for each debate. Like, you only need to poll 1% to get in the first debate, then 5% for the second debate, and so on. The only problem is that we seem to have settled into a situation with only three debates (of like 90 minutes? 2 hours? something like that). So unless we can add more debates, we have to weigh the costs and benefits of using up time on candidates with no chance of winning.

 

[jonessed]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

 

[the moops]

Which leads us back to what myself and NCC have said. The national polls are not listing Johnson as an option nor are they accepting him as an answer. So how's he supposed to get 15%?

Yeah, I addressed this earlier. The polls that have included him all top out at like 5% support. So, yes, he has fewer opportunities to reach the threshold by virtue of not being included in most polls. But there's no reason to think he would be anywhere near 15% in any of them if he was included. And I suspect more polls would include him if he was getting more support in the polls that he was in.

You seem to like the 15% thing. Why?Does a guy with 15% in the polls have a realistic shot at winning? How about 20%? 14%?

Yes, good question, fats. What's really driving your line of questioning here?

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

well, let's test your statement. I can give you numerous examples where multiparty systems led to dictatorships: among the two most famous are Weimar Germany and the Kerensky Republic in Russia. There are dozens more.Can you give an example where a two party political system ultimately led to a dicatorship? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, then I'd have to conclude that your argument has no merit.

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Next to Christo, you're the worst.

Unlike Christo, (and you for that matter), I am not insulting anyone. Unlike Christo (at times) I'm not joking around here. I honestly believe in my point, I'm not making it to provoke anyone, and I've tried to respond to every argument being made against me. So I don't think I'm comparable to Christo at all.

 

[jonessed]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

well, let's test your statement. I can give you numerous examples where multiparty systems led to dictatorships: among the two most famous are Weimar Germany and the Kerensky Republic in Russia. There are dozens more.Can you give an example where a two party political system ultimately led to a dicatorship? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, then I'd have to conclude that your argument has no merit.

That's what I get for trying to have a logical conversation with someone that is inherently illogical.

 

[roadkill1292]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

No one is suggesting equal power, just a little voice in the conversation. You seem determined to restrict all political privileges to the entrenched power holders and I don't understand why you can't see how uncomfortable this makes people. This is just awful. If I thought your were clever enough to fish us all, I'd say that's what you were doing here.

 

[NCCommish]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Of course you are. Because you are an elitist who doesn't really believe in democracy. In your world I should wait until Michelle Bachmann tells me what I should think? Yeah I'll stick with the unwashed masses and urchins thanks.

 

[NCCommish]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

well, let's test your statement. I can give you numerous examples where multiparty systems led to dictatorships: among the two most famous are Weimar Germany and the Kerensky Republic in Russia. There are dozens more.Can you give an example where a two party political system ultimately led to a dicatorship? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, then I'd have to conclude that your argument has no merit.

Yeah it was all about multiple parties. It had nothing to do with economics.

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

well, let's test your statement. I can give you numerous examples where multiparty systems led to dictatorships: among the two most famous are Weimar Germany and the Kerensky Republic in Russia. There are dozens more.Can you give an example where a two party political system ultimately led to a dicatorship? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, then I'd have to conclude that your argument has no merit.

That's what I get for trying to have a logical conversation with someone that is inherently illogical.

How exactly am I being illogical? I made the argument that one reason (not the only reason) I prefer two-party systems to multiparty systems is that the latter is more likely to lead to dictatorship. You disputed me, which is fine. I offered historical examples, and challenged you to do the same. What is so illogical?

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

No one is suggesting equal power, just a little voice in the conversation. You seem determined to restrict all political privileges to the entrenched power holders and I don't understand why you can't see how uncomfortable this makes people. This is just awful. If I thought your were clever enough to fish us all, I'd say that's what you were doing here.

I dompletely understand that it makes people uncomfortable. It also preserves political stability.I don't think it's awful, and I'm not fishing. Nor am I clever enough to do so.

 

[B-Deep]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

No one is suggesting equal power, just a little voice in the conversation. You seem determined to restrict all political privileges to the entrenched power holders and I don't understand why you can't see how uncomfortable this makes people. This is just awful. If I thought your were clever enough to fish us all, I'd say that's what you were doing here.

I dompletely understand that it makes people uncomfortable. It also preserves political stability.I don't think it's awful, and I'm not fishing. Nor am I clever enough to do so.

and a dictatorship preserves political stability even more.the less choice people are given the more stable is it, but that does not make it better.

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Of course you are. Because you are an elitist who doesn't really believe in democracy. In your world I should wait until Michelle Bachmann tells me what I should think? Yeah I'll stick with the unwashed masses and urchins thanks.

I do believe in democracy, just not democracy without controls. It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent. In an unregulated democracy such as that you seem to prefer, it is the Michelle Bachmanns of the world who gain more power, not less.

 

[NCCommish]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Of course you are. Because you are an elitist who doesn't really believe in democracy. In your world I should wait until Michelle Bachmann tells me what I should think? Yeah I'll stick with the unwashed masses and urchins thanks.

I do believe in democracy, just not democracy without controls. It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent. In an unregulated democracy such as that you seem to prefer, it is the Michelle Bachmanns of the world who gain more power, not less.

Yeah and in your world she runs for president, is actually up in the polls and gets a bigger stage for her ideas. The only reason it's Romney and not her is she didn't have the money he does. That's it. It wasn't because there are two parties it's because one rich guy had more rich friends than she does. So we get the worst of two worlds. We get two sides of the same coin running for president and we still get Bachmanns. Everyone thank Tim.

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

well, let's test your statement. I can give you numerous examples where multiparty systems led to dictatorships: among the two most famous are Weimar Germany and the Kerensky Republic in Russia. There are dozens more.Can you give an example where a two party political system ultimately led to a dicatorship? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, then I'd have to conclude that your argument has no merit.

Yeah it was all about multiple parties. It had nothing to do with economics.

I never said it wasn't about economics. You're creating straw arguments, which you do a lot IMO. Certainly economics had something to do with it, but so did the weak multiparty systems.Case in point: in 1932 in this country, the economy was falling apart. Breadlines everywhere. Banks failing. Farmers rioting in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, and marching upon city halls and state capitals. Socialists, Communists, and Fascists all calling for an end to our Democratic system. If we had had a multiparty democracy, we could not have weathered that storm. The result would have been chaos, and most likely some kind of dictatorship from the left or the right. It was only because the majority of the public was given an either-or choice, between Hoover and FDR, that our freedom was maintained. This is the strength of our form of government, better than all the rest.

 

[NCCommish]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

well, let's test your statement. I can give you numerous examples where multiparty systems led to dictatorships: among the two most famous are Weimar Germany and the Kerensky Republic in Russia. There are dozens more.Can you give an example where a two party political system ultimately led to a dicatorship? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, then I'd have to conclude that your argument has no merit.

Yeah it was all about multiple parties. It had nothing to do with economics.

I never said it wasn't about economics. You're creating straw arguments, which you do a lot IMO. Certainly economics had something to do with it, but so did the weak multiparty systems.Case in point: in 1932 in this country, the economy was falling apart. Breadlines everywhere. Banks failing. Farmers rioting in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, and marching upon city halls and state capitals. Socialists, Communists, and Fascists all calling for an end to our Democratic system. If we had had a multiparty democracy, we could not have weathered that storm. The result would have been chaos, and most likely some kind of dictatorship from the left or the right. It was only because the majority of the public was given an either-or choice, between Hoover and FDR, that our freedom was maintained. This is the strength of our form of government, better than all the rest.

No you used those as your examples of multi-party systems leading to dictatorships. You didn't say anything about other factors it was because of multi-parties. I didn't pick the examples you did. So you can call my answer a strawman I call it picking out the flaw in your argument.

 

[B-Deep]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Some of the most successfuly European nations have multi-party democracies. They simply form coalition governments. The idea that a two-party system is inherently more unlikely to lead to a dictatorship than a multi-party system is a load of crap. Our two-party system certainly hasn't helped alleviate a century of executive branch power grabs.

well, let's test your statement. I can give you numerous examples where multiparty systems led to dictatorships: among the two most famous are Weimar Germany and the Kerensky Republic in Russia. There are dozens more.Can you give an example where a two party political system ultimately led to a dicatorship? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, then I'd have to conclude that your argument has no merit.

Yeah it was all about multiple parties. It had nothing to do with economics.

I never said it wasn't about economics. You're creating straw arguments, which you do a lot IMO. Certainly economics had something to do with it, but so did the weak multiparty systems.Case in point: in 1932 in this country, the economy was falling apart. Breadlines everywhere. Banks failing. Farmers rioting in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, and marching upon city halls and state capitals. Socialists, Communists, and Fascists all calling for an end to our Democratic system. If we had had a multiparty democracy, we could not have weathered that storm. The result would have been chaos, and most likely some kind of dictatorship from the left or the right. It was only because the majority of the public was given an either-or choice, between Hoover and FDR, that our freedom was maintained. This is the strength of our form of government, better than all the rest.

or maybe with more diversity in the election choices we would never have gotten to that pointit is all conjecture

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Of course you are. Because you are an elitist who doesn't really believe in democracy. In your world I should wait until Michelle Bachmann tells me what I should think? Yeah I'll stick with the unwashed masses and urchins thanks.

I do believe in democracy, just not democracy without controls. It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent. In an unregulated democracy such as that you seem to prefer, it is the Michelle Bachmanns of the world who gain more power, not less.

Yeah and in your world she runs for president, is actually up in the polls and gets a bigger stage for her ideas. The only reason it's Romney and not her is she didn't have the money he does. That's it. It wasn't because there are two parties it's because one rich guy had more rich friends than she does. So we get the worst of two worlds. We get two sides of the same coin running for president and we still get Bachmanns. Everyone thank Tim.

If you truly believe that money is the only reason that Romney, not Bachmann, is the Republican nominee, then your opinion of the voters is much lower than mine (and I'm the one getting accused here of having a low opinion!) Bachmann had no chance of being the nominee in an establishment-controlled GOP. Senator Joe McCarthy, who had a national popularity about 1,000 times greater than Bachmann, had no chance of being the Republican nominee, though he wanted it badly. Tom Hayden never had a chance at being the Democrat nominee. BUT- allow third and fourth and fifth party movements to have equal footing, and then you'll get more Bachmanns and Haydens and McCarthys than you can imagine. All the wackos will pour forth. If that's what you want, have at it. Not me.

 

[NCCommish]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

Not wanting a dictatorship is something most of us should have in common.But if you take a look at history, what usually precedes dictatorship? The answer is weak, multiparty democracy. Too many factions unable to get their #### together. Yet you and others propose this is exactly what we should adopt here. Third parties, fourth parties, on an equal footing. History shows exactly what the results will be: chaos, anarchy, increased strength of populist and extremist movements, and all too often dictatorship.

I am not opposed to alternative, new ideas entering the mainstream of political thought, but I am against the general populace making decisions on those ideas. Let the politicos absorb them over time. Let the ideas of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, the ones with real and lasting merit, issue forth from the lips of one of the two major candidates. This usually does happen eventually.

Of course you are. Because you are an elitist who doesn't really believe in democracy. In your world I should wait until Michelle Bachmann tells me what I should think? Yeah I'll stick with the unwashed masses and urchins thanks.

I do believe in democracy, just not democracy without controls. It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent. In an unregulated democracy such as that you seem to prefer, it is the Michelle Bachmanns of the world who gain more power, not less.

Yeah and in your world she runs for president, is actually up in the polls and gets a bigger stage for her ideas. The only reason it's Romney and not her is she didn't have the money he does. That's it. It wasn't because there are two parties it's because one rich guy had more rich friends than she does. So we get the worst of two worlds. We get two sides of the same coin running for president and we still get Bachmanns. Everyone thank Tim.

If you truly believe that money is the only reason that Romney, not Bachmann, is the Republican nominee, then your opinion of the voters is much lower than mine (and I'm the one getting accused here of having a low opinion!) Bachmann had no chance of being the nominee in an establishment-controlled GOP. Senator Joe McCarthy, who had a national popularity about 1,000 times greater than Bachmann, had no chance of being the Republican nominee, though he wanted it badly. Tom Hayden never had a chance at being the Democrat nominee. BUT- allow third and fourth and fifth party movements to have equal footing, and then you'll get more Bachmanns and Haydens and McCarthys than you can imagine. All the wackos will pour forth. If that's what you want, have at it. Not me.

I guarantee if Bachmann would have had more money and a slightly better handler she would be running instead of Mitt. Neither of them has a new idea anywhere in their head. The only difference is she is more out front with her creepy religion than he is. And if you don't think extremist idiots are getting elected in this country then you haven't been paying attention. Oh wait I just pointed out an issue with your line of thought here that must be a strawman, my bad.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

I like the idea of using ballot-appearances rather than poll numbers because ballot-appearances are legitimately ***OFFICIAL*** while numbers from a CNN poll or whatever are merely "official" and can be affected by subjective choices about which candidates to list, etc.I don't really know how the Commission on Presidential Debates works, but as long as it's not funded by the government and is subject to competition from anyone else who wants to try to organize a debate, I think it should get to use any qualifications it wants. I think the qualifications used by the Commission on Presidential Debates are lame, but I can't think of any good reason why they should be legally forced to use different ones.

 

[SacramentoBob]

the 270 rule makes sense to me

It's a perfectly cromulent rule.

 

[B-Deep]

for the record

Bieber could kick Johnson's ### too

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

looney

I don't know if I would go that far, but the two party system has little to do with our strength in government stability. It's a natural result of the way the system is set up, but not the cause of it.

 

[ren hoek]

Not annihilating innocent civilians in countries that never attacked us is "extreme". Not torturing innocent people in secret prisons is "extreme". Ending a dishonest monetary system that destroys the poor and middle class is "extreme". Ending the useless and disgusting drug war is "extreme". Not blowing trillions of dollars on crony capitalism and the military-industrial complex is "extreme". Not supporting brutal dictatorships and apartheid regimes is "extreme". Ending the surveillance of American citizens is "extreme".



Believing in basic human rights, personal liberty and free markets doesn't make you an extremist. Tim's talk of maintaining the established duopoly might have some merit if the otherwise contending 3rd party were advocating actual extremism, but it's not, in fact the opposite is true. He's basically saying that the continued tyranny of the 2-party system is preferable to any sort of sensible, autonomous political uprising. Ridiculous.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

How about a guy who:Tried to eliminate the navy when it was the only thing protecting us from foreign agressors;Had a foreign policy that was 100% wrong and in every respect and led to a massive war;Owned a media outlet while a member of government and used it to attack the government;Supported foreign spies and their attempt to subvert the government;Would he count?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

I like the idea of using ballot-appearances rather than poll numbers because ballot-appearances are legitimately ***OFFICIAL*** while numbers from a CNN poll or whatever are merely "official" and can be affected by subjective choices about which candidates to list, etc.

Ballot appearances are "official" but they don't really tell us very much about anything. And setting the threshold at 270 seems arbitrary to me. What is the purpose of the requirement? To prove you're actually running for President? Roseanne is running for President. Why should she be excluded from the debate and Johnson included just because his party managed to get more signatures than hers?

 

[the moops]

But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

I like the idea of using ballot-appearances rather than poll numbers because ballot-appearances are legitimately ***OFFICIAL*** while numbers from a CNN poll or whatever are merely "official" and can be affected by subjective choices about which candidates to list, etc.

Ballot appearances are "official" but they don't really tell us very much about anything. And setting the threshold at 270 seems arbitrary to me. What is the purpose of the requirement? To prove you're actually running for President? Roseanne is running for President. Why should she be excluded from the debate and Johnson included just because his party managed to get more signatures than hers?

I'm not sure why you keep saying that 270 is some arbitrary number. That number wasn't just plucked out of thin air like the 15% in the national polls was. It has a very defined meaning - the number of electorates needed to become president.

 

[NCCommish]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

So basically let's sum up. You said "multiple parties lead to dictatorships" you then pull out two examples of dictatorships that came about for many reasons, the least of which was multiple parties. I point that out and it's a strawman. You then say "It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent" I point out you aren't preventing her lack of money is, which pretty much anyone could see. She was leading the GOP polls remember and she has still is in Congress helping make law. Again that's a strawman. So it appears anytime I point out a flaw in your half baked defense of our rigged system it is a strawman argument.

 

[roadkill1292]

TIM IS EVEN WORSE THAN CHRISTO

 

[timschochet]

Not annihilating innocent civilians in countries that never attacked us is "extreme". Not torturing innocent people in secret prisons is "extreme". Ending a dishonest monetary system that destroys the poor and middle class is "extreme". Ending the useless and disgusting drug war is "extreme". Not blowing trillions of dollars on crony capitalism and the military-industrial complex is "extreme". Not supporting brutal dictatorships and apartheid regimes is "extreme". Ending the surveillance of American citizens is "extreme".



Believing in basic human rights, personal liberty and free markets doesn't make you an extremist. Tim's talk of maintaining the established duopoly might have some merit if the otherwise contending 3rd party were advocating actual extremism, but it's not, in fact the opposite is true. He's basically saying that the continued tyranny of the 2-party system is preferable to any sort of sensible, autonomous political uprising. Ridiculous.

You started off so well. Every point in your first paragraph is a good one (or at least, a reasonable subject for good discussion and argument.) We might (and probably do) have some differences on those issues, but I can't challenge the validity of bringing them up.But then, in your second paragraph, you call the 2 party system a "tyranny"- and at the same time you claim to not being extremist- yet how can anything be more extremist than that? I wonder if you understand what tyranny really means; if you did, I doubt you would use it so lightly. It's like pro-lifers referring to abortion as a "Holocaust" or a modern-day black activist referring to criticism from the media as a "lynching"- when people use words such as these, it's a sure sign they are promoting political extremism.

Then, you appear to call for a "sensible, autonomous political uprising." I challenge you to name a SINGLE one of these in history. Even if you can come up with one that started out that way, you'll never find one that finished. It is exactly these "sensible" political uprisings that I fear would be the result of doing away with our two party "tyranny."

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

TIM IS EVEN WORSE THAN CHRISTO

That's definitely a straw man.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not sure why you keep saying that 270 is some arbitrary number. That number wasn't just plucked out of thin air like the 15% in the national polls was. It has a very defined meaning - the number of electorates needed to become president.

Sure the number has meaning in other contexts, but what's the principle behind using it to decide who is in a debate? I think that inclusion in a debate should be limited, at least somewhat, to candidates that have some possibility of becoming President. Is that what you think is being accomplished by the 270 thing? If so, it seems to do an incredibly poor job of it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

I like the idea of using ballot-appearances rather than poll numbers because ballot-appearances are legitimately ***OFFICIAL*** while numbers from a CNN poll or whatever are merely "official" and can be affected by subjective choices about which candidates to list, etc.

Ballot appearances are "official" but they don't really tell us very much about anything. And setting the threshold at 270 seems arbitrary to me. What is the purpose of the requirement? To prove you're actually running for President? Roseanne is running for President. Why should she be excluded from the debate and Johnson included just because his party managed to get more signatures than hers?

Two-seventy might not be the right number, but I wouldn't call it arbitrary. It's what wins the election. And getting signatures for ballot eligibility is a meaningful step in a serious run.According to the Internet, Roseanne will be on the ballot in Florida. If I were organizing a debate, would I include her along with the 20 or so other candidates who made it onto the ballot in at least one state? I wouldn't. Twenty is too many, so I'd probably choose a higher threshold than one electoral college vote. I don't know whether I'd choose 270. On the plus side, it's non-arbitrary and would limit the field to a good number of candidates for a debate — four or five, I'm guessing, but I don't feel like Googling anything else right now after I've already Googled Roseanne Barr. But maybe a different number is better. I'd get more than two candidates into the debate, though, if I thought it would improve its quality. (I'm not sure what I'd do if Romney and Obama jointly boycotted the addition of anyone else.)

 

[timschochet]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

So basically let's sum up. You said "multiple parties lead to dictatorships" you then pull out two examples of dictatorships that came about for many reasons, the least of which was multiple parties. I point that out and it's a strawman. You then say "It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent" I point out you aren't preventing her lack of money is, which pretty much anyone could see. She was leading the GOP polls remember and she has still is in Congress helping make law. Again that's a strawman. So it appears anytime I point out a flaw in your half baked defense of our rigged system it is a strawman argument.

Well, that's your summary, not mine. The essential difference between us regarding Bachmann is that you believe that if she had enough money she would have been the nominee. I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.I should add that with every argument there are always usually one or two examples that contradict it. The only modern example I can think of is Huey P. Long of Louisiana. Had he not been assassinated, it was his intention to run for President in 1936, as a third party candidate. He represents, so far as I know, the only time in modern American political history that an actual extremist had a reasonable chance of being elected.

 

[the moops]

I'm not sure why you keep saying that 270 is some arbitrary number. That number wasn't just plucked out of thin air like the 15% in the national polls was. It has a very defined meaning - the number of electorates needed to become president.

Sure the number has meaning in other contexts, but what's the principle behind using it to decide who is in a debate? I think that inclusion in a debate should be limited, at least somewhat, to candidates that have some possibility of becoming President. Is that what you think is being accomplished by the 270 thing? If so, it seems to do an incredibly poor job of it.

I don't think that the only reason someone should be allowed to debate is if they have a good chance at becoming president.