Shouldn't Gary Johnson be allowed to join the Presidential debates?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to,afterall he's running for President as well.

So what does OT think?

#2 Posted by Ring_of_fire (15653 posts) -
What is the criteria to be in the debates?
#3 Posted by YoshiYogurt (5973 posts) -
Gary Johnson sucks, why not jill stien?
#4 Posted by sSubZerOo (43075 posts) -

I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to,afterall he's running for President as well.

So what does OT think?

sexyweapons
There are ALOT Of people that can claim that they are running for president.
#5 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -
Gary Johnson sucks, why not jill stien?YoshiYogurt
fine,*adds Jill Stein*
#6 Posted by homegirl2180 (7161 posts) -
He doesn't meet the requirements, so that's really all there is to it. Ross Perot debated in 1992. The better question would be: should we change the requirement that you need to be polling at least 15% nationwide to join the Presidential debate?
#7 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

What is the criteria to be in the debates?Ring_of_fire

Pretty much you gotta be the Republican or Democratic nominee.

Personally I think any candidate who's on the ballot in enough states to win should be in the debates.

#8 Posted by hoola (6422 posts) -

Yes. All third parties should be allowed to. 15% to join the debates is way too much considering the only way to get a good percentage in the polls is to advertise yourself and advertising yourself requires money which is all spent on just getting on the ballots for third parties. That essentially limits any third party/independent candidate to those who are really rich.

#9 Posted by Ring_of_fire (15653 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]What is the criteria to be in the debates?worlock77

Pretty much you gotta be the Republican or Democratic nominee.

Personally I think any candidate who's on the ballot in enough states to win should be in the debates.

Thanks. I think I would agree with your suggestion.
#10 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
The problem is less that they aren't allowed to debate and more that voters won't actually make an effort to do research and see who their options are. They just vote based on what they see on TV. And then there are the voters who won't vote for who they want to win, because they don't think the person can win, even though the reason that person can't win is because of that self-fulfilling belief.
#11 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10578 posts) -
He doesn't meet the requirements, so that's really all there is to it. Ross Perot debated in 1992. The better question would be: should we change the requirement that you need to be polling at least 15% nationwide to join the Presidential debate?homegirl2180
Yes, it should be any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to be elected President of the United States, will have a guaranteed podium on the debate stage.
#12 Posted by TopTierHustler (3961 posts) -

no.

waste of time.

#13 Posted by cslayer211 (833 posts) -
Gary Johnson sucks, why not jill stien?YoshiYogurt
:lol:
#14 Posted by t3hrubikscube (20416 posts) -
I loathe the two-party system and would be happy to see the third party candidates get to have more involvement.
#15 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9206 posts) -

That would legitimize 3rd party candidates and neither party wants that. The 15% mark for those debates is way to high and they know it will be unlikely any 3rd party candidate reaches it. At the end of the day, the only thing the two parties can agree on is they can't let 3rd party candidates become mainstream.

#16 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

What is the criteria to be in the debates?Ring_of_fire

It has something to do with national polling.

#17 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed sexyweapons
Really? What if those putting on/administrating the debate don't want him to participate?

#18 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -
Wait. Who? That little dude from Diff'rent Strokes? Not a chance.
#19 Posted by Zlurodirom (723 posts) -

It would be nice to see more people up there and diversifying the field; however, there is hardly enough time for Obama and Romney, adding one or more people may just muddy up the field and not allow everyone an equal share of explaining their veiws/policies.

#20 Posted by Optical_Order (5100 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed thegerg
Really? What if those putting on/administrating the debate don't him to participate?

Then they're big meanies and I'll send them a concerned letter.

#21 Posted by Allicrombie (25129 posts) -
They may as well admit write in candidates as well, I'd love to see ALF at the podium.
#22 Posted by Chemistian (635 posts) -
This topic came up prior to the first debate. In order to allow them on the stage, one must redefine what measuring stick we wish to use for those of whom wish to have a podium. There are roughly 43 political parties in the U.S. If each one nominates a candidate and gets an equal amount of time, no one gets much substance in a 90 minute debate. If we only wish to allow the five major party candidates (Dem., Rep. Libertarian, Reform, Green) we must have a measuring stick that clearly shows why these five belong there, and the other 38 do not. Otherwise we end up with 6th party supporters making the same argument that 3rd party supporters are making now, only without clear guidelines. The current guidelines are available from the Federal Election Commission. One additional thing of note: the qualifications for being on the stage are the same as for qualifying for the $91.2 million campaign matching funds, so this could get absurdly expensive, very quick.
#23 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

Yes. All third parties should be allowed to. 15% to join the debates is way too much considering the only way to get a good percentage in the polls is to advertise yourself and advertising yourself requires money which is all spent on just getting on the ballots for third parties. That essentially limits any third party/independent candidate to those who are really rich.

hoola
it is not as limiting as the polls not including third party players, but what does one expect when the democrats and republicans formed the Commission on Presidential Debates after the League of Woman voters stopped overseeing the debates
#24 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
Cave Johnson would be a far better candidate.
#25 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5117 posts) -
Ok, I am running for president. Let me in the debates, no reason not to!
#26 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9206 posts) -

Nobody is saying everyone would should be allowed. I just think its rather obvious that they chose 15% with the knowledge no 3rd party candidate would ever reach it.

#27 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
Only if he changes his name to Harry Johnson.
#28 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -
yes he should be able to be in it. would be nice seeing some actual contrast for once
#29 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -
[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed thegerg
Really? What if those putting on/administrating the debate don't him to participate?

what happens if they don't like Romney or Obama,you expect them to not let them participate?
#30 Posted by TopTierHustler (3961 posts) -

Cave Johnson would be a far better candidate.Nibroc420
He has a strong stance on lemons.

#31 Posted by LOXO7 (5549 posts) -
#32 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sexyweapons"]I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed sexyweapons
Really? What if those putting on/administrating the debate don't him to participate?

what happens if they don't like Romney or Obama,you expect them to not let them participate?

That's not very likely. They're the 2 leading candidates for the position. I do not expect that. Now. please try to answer my question.