Third party candidates in the debate

[oldwirehands]

Do you think this should be allowed? I think so. Especially if the candidate is on most, if not all of the states' ballots.

[Praetor]

Absolutely. They will never win an election but they are important.

[ActionActionFan]

It should definitley be allowed.

[mattybobviously]

I'd go for this:
If a candidate is on 95% of states' ballots, they are invited to first debate
THEN, for subsequent debates, polling numbers can be used to determine who gets entry. Third party candidates should at least get one chance to see if people take to their message

[We'reAllThieves]

I think there should be a well amount of parties.

[benjammun]

Duh.

[open mind]

it's a testament to how undemocratic this country really is that this is a question that has to be asked.

[benjammun]

Nader just released his proposed "economic fix." Note the strange amount of substance.

Immediate Changes Required for Any Bailout

- No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants

- No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out

- No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives

- No bailouts without public hearings



Changes to Housing Market

- Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.

- Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.

- Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.



Structural Changes to Financial Markets

- Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.

- Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.

- Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism.

[oldwirehands]

WWctW0X1Q5Y

Well, Bob Barr wasn't invited. He's on the ballot in 48 states, with two states pending.

[Neo Cassady]

Yes. The two-party system is stupid.

[Adeniz19]

I don't see how it would hurt

[apoemtothedead]

If they're polling 5 or 10% nationally they should be allowed in the debates.

[Aether]

I'd go for this:
If a candidate is on 95% of states' ballots, they are invited to first debate
THEN, for subsequent debates, polling numbers can be used to determine who gets entry. Third party candidates should at least get one chance to see if people take to their message

Sounds reasonable. It's not asking much at all.

[incredulous]

it's a testament to how undemocratic this country really is that this is a question that has to be asked.
Agreed. It's like telling people that their chosen candidates aren't worthy of being given a voice.

[mattybobviously]

Ballot access should at least determine the first debate, the process of getting on the ballot is ridiculously hard, and if someone managed to accomplish it to that extent, they should at least get the platform. If their polling doesn't take off, then okay, keep them out, but the notion that they shouldn't get a platform to start from is just wrong.

[oldwirehands]

I don't think it should depend totally on the polls. Seeing how third parties get little to no media coverage compared to the Dems and Reps. It just doesn't make sense to me why the third party candidates weren't invited to the debates. If they're on the ballot in most/all states then why shouldn't the American public see them talk about the issues among the two popular candidates? If they're so confident in themselves, what do they have to be afraid of? If anything it would make the debates more lively.

I would have thought Obama would be saying something about this but I haven't heard anything yet.

[Twebasaurus]

The two party system is the single greatest failure of the American political system. The free exchange of ideas has been reduced to talking points. Both parties seem to be in favor of big government, and both parties seem to be in favor of spending tax payer money without limit. The truth is, that they know that in the arena of ideas the third parties have an immense advantage.