PDA

View Full Version : Commission on Presidential Debates



Adelaide
10-04-2016, 07:33 AM
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) claims to be a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that sets the rules for Presidential and Vice Presidential debates; however, they are run by former Democrat/Republican party leaders and take contributions from both parties. Basically, they are not "nonpartisan". In 1992, Ross Perot managed to get into the debates and since then the CPD has made sure that no third party or independent candidate would be able to get into the debates. Perot was too successful and they weren't going to allow that to happen again.

In a review of his 2000 run for president with regards to the CPD, Nader wrote, "“With these criteria, Abraham Lincoln would have been excluded from the debates; he wasn’t even on the ballot in nine states.” Kind of an interesting quote.

So - do you think the system needs to be overhauled to have a commission that is actually nonpartisan, or do away with it and come up with a better set of rules that don't disenfranchise third parties and independents? The line I would personally suggest drawing in the sand is that candidates should be on the ballot in 75% of states - ballot access laws for ridiculous, so for any candidate to meet that minimum, it would indicate a serious run. So, for the current election, it would allow Stein and Johnson access to the debates, but not the cats or teenagers who are joke candidates.

Bethere
10-04-2016, 09:12 AM
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) claims to be a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that sets the rules for Presidential and Vice Presidential debates; however, they are run by former Democrat/Republican party leaders and take contributions from both parties. Basically, they are not "nonpartisan". In 1992, Ross Perot managed to get into the debates and since then the CPD has made sure that no third party or independent candidate would be able to get into the debates. Perot was too successful and they weren't going to allow that to happen again.

In a review of his 2000 run for president with regards to the CPD, Nader wrote, "“With these criteria, Abraham Lincoln would have been excluded from the debates; he wasn’t even on the ballot in nine states.” Kind of an interesting quote.

So - do you think the system needs to be overhauled to have a commission that is actually nonpartisan, or do away with it and come up with a better set of rules that don't disenfranchise third parties and independents? The line I would personally suggest drawing in the sand is that candidates should be on the ballot in 75% of states - ballot access laws for ridiculous, so for any candidate to meet that minimum, it would indicate a serious run. So, for the current election, it would allow Stein and Johnson access to the debates, but not the cats or teenagers who are joke candidates.

Candidates aren't required to debate. There is no right to expect a debate or to be part of a debate.

exploited
10-04-2016, 09:34 AM
I'd be cool with those rule adjustments.

donttread
10-04-2016, 09:38 AM
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) claims to be a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that sets the rules for Presidential and Vice Presidential debates; however, they are run by former Democrat/Republican party leaders and take contributions from both parties. Basically, they are not "nonpartisan". In 1992, Ross Perot managed to get into the debates and since then the CPD has made sure that no third party or independent candidate would be able to get into the debates. Perot was too successful and they weren't going to allow that to happen again.

In a review of his 2000 run for president with regards to the CPD, Nader wrote, "“With these criteria, Abraham Lincoln would have been excluded from the debates; he wasn’t even on the ballot in nine states.” Kind of an interesting quote.

So - do you think the system needs to be overhauled to have a commission that is actually nonpartisan, or do away with it and come up with a better set of rules that don't disenfranchise third parties and independents? The line I would personally suggest drawing in the sand is that candidates should be on the ballot in 75% of states - ballot access laws for ridiculous, so for any candidate to meet that minimum, it would indicate a serious run. So, for the current election, it would allow Stein and Johnson access to the debates, but not the cats or teenagers who are joke candidates.


Well for one thing we need non-partisian and bi-partisan to be two different things . Yes, replace the commission. Start with criteria as inclusive as possible. We need 5, 6 , 8 parties in these debates if at all possible, certainly 4 . I don't care if number 4 is polling at .oooo1 % . How the hell can labile instruments like political polls be used for such a purpuse to begin with? We need commision that starts with the Prime Directive "Thou Shall Be Inclusive"

Green Arrow
10-04-2016, 12:55 PM
I think it should be replaced by a publicly funded and run commission with mandatory inclusivity rules: any candidate that can make the ballot in five states (10% of the states) will receive an invitation.

Chris
10-04-2016, 01:07 PM
Replace it with a non-partisan committee.

Reform it with a requirement for participation in debate something along lines of number of states candidate is on ballot. Junk the arbitrary selection of arbitrary and meaningless polls.

Truth Detector
10-04-2016, 01:52 PM
I think it should be replaced by a publicly funded and run commission with mandatory inclusivity rules: any candidate that can make the ballot in five states (10% of the states) will receive an invitation.

I am good with this. However, the media would never go for it nor would the corrupt powers in Washington DC.

Ravens Fan
10-04-2016, 03:42 PM
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) claims to be a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that sets the rules for Presidential and Vice Presidential debates; however, they are run by former Democrat/Republican party leaders and take contributions from both parties. Basically, they are not "nonpartisan". In 1992, Ross Perot managed to get into the debates and since then the CPD has made sure that no third party or independent candidate would be able to get into the debates. Perot was too successful and they weren't going to allow that to happen again.

In a review of his 2000 run for president with regards to the CPD, Nader wrote, "“With these criteria, Abraham Lincoln would have been excluded from the debates; he wasn’t even on the ballot in nine states.” Kind of an interesting quote.

So - do you think the system needs to be overhauled to have a commission that is actually nonpartisan, or do away with it and come up with a better set of rules that don't disenfranchise third parties and independents? The line I would personally suggest drawing in the sand is that candidates should be on the ballot in 75% of states - ballot access laws for ridiculous, so for any candidate to meet that minimum, it would indicate a serious run. So, for the current election, it would allow Stein and Johnson access to the debates, but not the cats or teenagers who are joke candidates.

I would be ok with any changes/replacements needed to ensure fairness to all parties and to ensure they are given a realistic shot at attending the debates.

Peter1469
10-04-2016, 04:54 PM
Get the media out of debates except as reporters. If they still have anyone left qualified for that position.

Bethere
10-04-2016, 05:30 PM
Get the media out of debates except as reporters. If they still have anyone left qualified for that position.

You entitled little girls have no constitutional right to interact with, let alone debate with, our candidate.

We could just blow off debates altogether as every candidate in American history did before 1960.

What we do with our limited resource of time is our call. We are under no obligation to recognize your existence let alone to make things fair for you.

Bethere
10-04-2016, 05:31 PM
I would be ok with any changes/replacements needed to ensure fairness to all parties and to ensure they are given a realistic shot at attending the debates.

Or we could exclude you and your party just for funzies!

Ravens Fan
10-04-2016, 05:40 PM
Or we could exclude you and your party just for funzies!

Since I have no party, that would be fun indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Peter1469
10-04-2016, 05:55 PM
If you insist on that sort of discussion style do not address me. You know the drill.

Dismissed.


You entitled little girls have no constitutional right to interact with, let alone debate with, our candidate.

We could just blow off debates altogether as every candidate in American history did before 1960.

What we do with our limited resource of time is our call. We are under no obligation to recognize your existence let alone to make things fair for you.

Bethere
10-04-2016, 05:59 PM
If you insist on that sort of discussion style do not address me. You know the drill.

Dismissed.

Pete the regular poster knows where the ignore button is.

Bethere
10-04-2016, 06:02 PM
Since I have no party, that would be fun indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Your mind is totally controlled. It has been stuffed into my mold. And you will do what you've been told. Until the rights to you are sold."--FZ

Peter1469
10-04-2016, 06:03 PM
"Your mind is totally controlled. It has been stuffed into my mold. And you will do what you've been told. Until the rights to you are sold."--FZ


Warning: discuss the topic, not each other. TB next time.

Ravens Fan
10-04-2016, 06:13 PM
"Your mind is totally controlled. It has been stuffed into my mold. And you will do what you've been told. Until the rights to you are sold."--FZ
My mind is completely my own, and it is an open one, willing to consider ideas that I do not necessarily agree with.

I look forward to the day that any serious candidate for president may participate in a debate with the candidates from the 2 controlling parties and present him/herself to the large audience that the Presidential debates bring. Where they can argue their position on the same stage and without media spin.

Why do you feel that the American people do not deserve that?