Support NeoGAF

[Tranqueris]

I think the 15% threshold is fine. I think the idea of lowering it down is sort of weird. This is a major television event that is happening about 5-6 weeks before the election. This isn't some "hey, let's let everyone in because it's January and the primaries are about to start" nonsense. If the threshold is going to be lowered so that even Jill Stein can get in then they might as well let Harambe's resurrected corpse and Deez Nuts join in as well.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think the 15% threshold is fine. I think the idea of lowering it down is sort of weird. This is a major television event that is happening about 5-6 weeks before the election. This isn't some "hey, let's let everyone in because it's January and the primaries are about to start" nonsense. If the threshold is going to be lowered so that even Jill Stein can get in then they might as well let Harambe's resurrected corpse and Deez Nuts join in as well.

Let's be real: Harambe's dead corpse would be invited to the debate before Jill Stein.

 

[The Atticus]

People who think either of them will siphon off Hillary is a child themselves, but whatever, not getting involved in some of the discussion here

 

[Azzanadra]

I really have to question those cheering this.

Regardless of what you may think of a third party candidates policies, it is always good to hear another voice and perspective in the debates. Silencing views you don't agree with isn't the answer, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Heck as a Socialist I was REALLY pulling for Johnson's inclusion in the debates, despite having views polar opposite to his on the economic front.

 

[213372bu]

I'm so glad only two candidates are debating!

Only two of the biggest platforms should be on the stage at a time, otherwise it can be a little too "distracting" when you contemplate politics outside of an us vs them situation.

Complacency of a binary system with no pathway to legitimizing other parties is the best.

Otherwise Hillary wouldn't be able to "nail the last nail in the coffin" in a "1v1 stage" to demolish Trump.

yaaass

 

[Blader]

People who think either of them will siphon off Hillary is a child themselves, but whatever, not getting involved in some of the discussion here

Johnson is pulling voters from both Hillary and Trump. Stein is pulling her small group from voters from Hillary.

These can and probably will change by November, but that's what's happening in the polls right now.

 

[teh_pwn]

I really have to question those cheering this.

Regardless of what you may think of a third party candidates policies, it is always good to hear another voice and perspective in the debates. Silencing views you don't agree with isn't the answer, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Heck as a Socialist I was REALLY pulling for Johnson's inclusion in the debates, despite having views polar opposite to his on the economic front.

I absolutely agree. This is what Democracy is about.

 

[N.Domixis]

Yes, its done for them. For the love of god if you have any sort of moral code vote for her. That simple.

a vote against Hilary is a vote for Trump so nope.

 

[Blader]

I really have to question those cheering this.

Regardless of what you may think of a third party candidates policies, it is always good to hear another voice and perspective in the debates. Silencing views you don't agree with isn't the answer, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Heck as a Socialist I was REALLY pulling for Johnson's inclusion in the debates, despite having views polar opposite to his on the economic front.

I don't think either of them are serious candidates so why would I care about hearing them debate? There's no "regardless of what you think of their policies" here. They're running for president!

 

[teh_pwn]

I don't think either of them are serious candidates so why would I care about hearing them debate? There's no "regardless of what you think of their policies" here. They're running for president!

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they aren't sincere.

 

[jack_package_200]

I really have to question those cheering this.

Regardless of what you may think of a third party candidates policies, it is always good to hear another voice and perspective in the debates. Silencing views you don't agree with isn't the answer, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Heck as a Socialist I was REALLY pulling for Johnson's inclusion in the debates, despite having views polar opposite to his on the economic front.

Two candidates who have zero chance of winning any electoral votes do not belong the debate stage.

 

[Dirca]

Yes, its done for them. For the love of god if you have any sort of moral code vote for her. That simple.

Nope.

 

[jack_package_200]

Nope.

Must be nice to not give a fuck about minorities, women, and the lbgt.

 

[ascii42]

Two candidates who have zero chance of winning any electoral votes do not belong the debate stage.

Fivethityeight has Johnson's chances of getting at least one electoral vote at a cool 2.3%, the most likely being from New Mexico, not surprisingly. Not that I disagree with your point.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Must be nice to not give a fuck about minorities, women, and the lbgt.

Who cares? It's not like anyone actually needed the ACA, DREAM, DACA, financial reform, liberal SC justices, etc....

None of that. It's better to vote for a party that almost wanted to outlaw driver's licenses and one headed by a lady who thinks wi-fi causes cancer. Totally a good call.

 

[Hycran]

I absolutely agree. This is what Democracy is about.

Democracy isn't about letting anyone voice their own opinions for any reason they want, especially idiots. There are reasonable, common sense restrictions in place to prevent discourse that has no value from invading the public sphere. As far as I'm concerned, what Stein and Johnson espouse has no value and its lack of inclusion will give more time to the people who actually have worthwhile contributions to make.

 

[teh_pwn]

Democracy isn't about letting anyone voice their own opinions for any reason they want, especially idiots.

Okay?

I'm done with politics. So toxic.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Okay?

I'm done with politics. So toxic.

Pursuant to the NEOGAF Act of 2016, this means you forfeit your vote to me and I now have two.

 

[Azzanadra]

Two candidates who have zero chance of winning any electoral votes do not belong the debate stage.

Here in Canada we let Elizabeth May on the debate stage and it turned out fine. In fact, she was considered the the most sensible one on stage compared to the others. Its not just about winning, though I can see why Americans have been so accustomed to this partisanship closer to a WWE match than an intellectual clash of ideas. Many people aren't exposed to the broader spectrum of political ideas and philosophies, and a debate is a good way for people to discover themselves and what they truly believe, else they will continue to align with one of the two parties for lack of a better reason than falling in line.

 

[HariKari]

I'd like to see Gary Johnson there just for the dynamic shift of having a 3rd person - one that the other candidates probably wouldn't even bother going after. It'd be a nice contrast.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they aren't sincere.

Jill Stein think Wi-Fi gives you brain cancer.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Man, for everyone screaming about this, Gary Johnson basically came out and said his main reason for wanting to be at the debates was so he could call Donald Trump a giant pussy for not releasing his tax returns. He's also representing a party where one of the candidates he beat was a man dressed like wizard who carried a giant toothbrush.

I want you to let these things soak in for a minute.

 

[minor effort]

I really have to question those cheering this.

Regardless of what you may think of a third party candidates policies, it is always good to hear another voice and perspective in the debates. Silencing views you don't agree with isn't the answer, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Heck as a Socialist I was REALLY pulling for Johnson's inclusion in the debates, despite having views polar opposite to his on the economic front.

Not that I want to necessarily cheer silencing views, but most people have come to the conclusion that only two candidates in this race stand any chance of winning the vote this November: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. None of the other candidates in the race are polling well enough to even be considered a longshot. Because of that, it's understandable that many would want to keep the debate limited to those two candidates who have realistic chances of winning, to draw the starkest possible contrast between them without distraction.

This year people probably feel stronger about this than other years, given how concerned many are with the possibility of a Trump win. If this were a boring election year where both leading candidates were within normal parameters I'm sure more would be a little more open.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Here in Canada we let Elizabeth May on the debate stage and it turned out fine. In fact, she was considered the the most sensible one on stage compared to the others. Its not just about winning, though I can see why Americans have been so accustomed to this partisanship closer to a WWE match than an intellectual clash of ideas. Many people aren't exposed to the broader spectrum of political ideas and philosophies, and a debate is a good way for people to discover themselves and what they truly believe, else they will continue to align with one of the two parties for lack of a better reason than falling in line.

Yeah, look at how awesome splitting the vote has worked out for Canada - 10 years of Stephen Harper having almost dictatorial control of Canada.

The Green and Libertarian Party should work building themselves as 'second parties' in localities and states where the DNC or GOP is DOA, such as San Francisco or Utah or Detroit or Wyoming.

 

[BigBeauford]

I doubt this changes much for Johnson's supporters. Not throwing a vote behind a candidate just because they are the lesser of two evils.

 

[Dude Abides]

If Vermin Supreme can't debate, no one should.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

I still don't get why I woudl vote for a third party candidate form a party that hasn't shown to be electable at other levels of government.

If they want the big chair, they need to start with state legislatures, and governorships first. Prove they know what it takes to govern and all that.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

I still don't get why I woudl vote for a third party candidate form a party that hasn't shown to be electable at other levels of government.

If they want the big chair, they need to start with state legislatures, and governorships first. Prove they know what it takes to govern and all that.

This has and always will be my problem with third parties. They show up every four years and think they are just going to leap frog into CiC. Which is why every four years they are treated as a joke.

 

[Azzanadra]

Yeah, look at how awesome splitting the vote has worked out for Canada - 10 years of Stephen Harper having almost dictatorial control of Canada.
.

Splitting the vote is more a problem with our first post the post system than the fact that we let May on the debate stage. That's a very dangerous line of thought though, that alternate viewpoints should be censored just because people who may otherwise vote for your preferred party won't fall in line and will choose to vote with someone they feel better represents them.

 

[KHarvey16]

Isn't a corporation acting in its best interests pretty much a fundamental tenet of libertarianism?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Isn't a corporation acting in its best interests pretty much a fundamental tenet of libertarianism?

Libertarian Party needs to stop trying to get debate handouts. Podiums don't grow on trees (kinda, they are wooden).

 

[Thequietone]

Sorry, but Donald Trump scares me. Anything Stein or Johnson have to offer to the political debate isn't worth risking a Trump presidency. If it were Romney or someone else I'd maybe consider. It's 2016 and you can find what there policies are online and you can still vote for them if you want. That's your right.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Third party candidates who pop up only during presidential elections and don't give a turd about the hard work of building the party from local level first...expect to be viewed as equal asDemocratic and Republican candidates, lol. These people are not serious candidates and only seek to exploit people's cynicism with democracy. Fuck these losers

 

[Dirca]

Must be nice to not give a fuck about minorities, women, and the lbgt.

Oh right, sorry. I forgot that voting for who you believe in (that is, 3rd party) instead of voting for hillary automatically makes you racist, sexist, homophobic. Give me a goddamned break with that broken record narrative.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Oh right, sorry. I forgot that voting for who you believe in (that is, 3rd party) instead of voting for hillary automatically makes you racist, sexist, homophobic. Give me a goddamned break with that broken record narrative.

Nah - it just means you clearly value other things MORE than voting against unambiguous white nationalism. That's certainly a decision that's each voter's to make, but other people still get to have an opinion on it.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Third party candidates who pop up only during presidential elections and don't give a turd about the hard work of building the party from local level first...expect to be viewed as equal asDemocratic and Republican candidates, lol. These people are not serious candidates and only seek to exploit people's cynicism with democracy. Fuck these losers

I mean there's a pretty big difference between a party that had been established for 200+ years vs one that's just trying to start up and give people other options. What exactly were you expecting?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Here in Canada we let Elizabeth May on the debate stage and it turned out fine. In fact, she was considered the the most sensible one on stage compared to the others. Its not just about winning, though I can see why Americans have been so accustomed to this partisanship closer to a WWE match than an intellectual clash of ideas. Many people aren't exposed to the broader spectrum of political ideas and philosophies, and a debate is a good way for people to discover themselves and what they truly believe, else they will continue to align with one of the two parties for lack of a better reason than falling in line.

Ummmm she
a) Got elected in her riding
b) Ran candidates in most ridings

These parties aren't even parties they are individuals with no downticket structure. They're jokes who only come out ever 4 years.

Meanwhile May goes to work everyday in Parliament

 

[excelsiorlef]

I mean there's a pretty big difference between a party that had been established for 200+ years vs one that's just trying to start up and give people other options. What exactly were you expecting?

Start at the grass roots and build up. Don't start at the top with no structural support beneath you.

 

[minor effort]

I mean there's a pretty big difference between a party that had been established for 200+ years vs one that's just trying to start up and give people other options. What exactly were you expecting?

Vote locally. Vote for the ground up.

As negative as I've sounded about third party candidates in this thread, I've voted for Greens for local and state office in the past, and could see myself doing it again in the future, given qualified candidates. But every four years Greens and Libertarians swoop in to presidential races and expect equal time to Democrats and Republicans when they have no presence in congress or most state houses. My next Green vote almost certainly won't be for a presidential candidate unless they become a strong, stable third-party.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Splitting the vote is more a problem with our first post the post system than the fact that we let May on the debate stage. That's a very dangerous line of thought though, that alternate viewpoints should be censored just because people who may otherwise vote for your preferred party won't fall in line and will choose to vote with someone they feel better represents them.

And her being on stage likely meant a lot more people voted for a Green candidate in their riding who had absolutely no shot to win and possibly even split the vote to help a Conservative win in marginal seats.

As for "who better represents them", would you rather have been represented by somebody you agreed with 50% of the time for the past decade or by somebody you agreed with 10% of the time for the past decade?

You can't always have ice cream for breakfast. Sometimes, you've got to eat some oatmeal.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Vote locally. Vote for the ground up.

As negative as I've sounded about third party candidates in this thread, I've voted for Greens for local and state office in the past, and could see myself doing it again in the future, given qualified candidates. But every four years Greens and Libertarians swoop in to presidential races and expect equal time to Democrats and Republicans when they have no presence in congress or most state houses. My next Green vote almost certainly won't be for a presidential candidate unless they become a strong, stable third-party.

Libertarians and greens will never get anywhere in local races. You need the R or D after your name to win those races, the most partisan voters are the ones who turn out for midterms and state elections and they aren't going to go for a third party. Libertarians do field candidates for state elections (edit: 591 candidates this year) and they always lose, because why would someone vote for the LP candidate when you could vote for a Republican that actually has a chance?

The only time LP ever does well is when the republican candidate is abysmal, for instance Carla Howell running in 2000 against Ted Kennedy pulled 11.88% of the vote in MA, compared to 12% for the terrible republican candidate. Same thing is happening this year as Republicans disgusted with Donald Trump jump ship to vote for Johnson/Weld (moderate republicans in disguise as libertarians).

In the few cases where a third party has been successful in local races, they get absorbed into the national Democratic party. It's how our system works, since a purely local party will never be successful on the national stage and the first-past-the-post voting system leads to two party dominance:

• Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party
• North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party

 

[Toxi]

Green and Libertarian parties will also get nowhere in the Presidential race.

 

[ZackieChan]

Sorry, but Donald Trump scares me. Anything Stein or Johnson have to offer to the political debate isn't worth risking a Trump presidency. If it were Romney or someone else I'd maybe consider. It's 2016 and you can find what there policies are online and you can still vote for them if you want. That's your right.

People say the same shit about pretty much every candidate that isn't theirs, every presidential election. There's never going to be a perfect election where it'll be "safe" to let in a third party candidate. Romney was the devil 4 years ago, McCain/Palin before that, and Bush before that. I've voted in every election since Bush/Gore (voted Nader), and the story is always the same. I'm not sure what the solution is, but continually passing it off to the next election certainly isn't the answer. We as a nation need to decide whether or not it's important to have more than two possible choices in our presidential elections.

 

[KHarvey16]

People say the same shit about pretty much every candidate that isn't theirs, every presidential election. There's never going to be a perfect election where it'll be "safe" to let in a third party candidate. Romney was the devil 4 years ago, McCain/Palin before that, and Bush before that. I've voted in every election since Bush/Gore (voted Nader), and the story is always the same. I'm not sure what the solution is, but continually passing it off to the next election certainly isn't the answer. We as a nation need to decide whether or not it's important to have more than two possible choices in our presidential elections.

This time is very obviously different. If you really think the same exact things would be said if Romney were the current Republican nominee, I don't think you really paid attention back then or are paying attention now.

 

[ZackieChan]

This time is very obviously different. If you really think the same exact things would be said if Romney were the current Republican nominee, I don't think you really paid attention back then or are paying attention now.

The same shit is said every time; we just have a more horrible candidate to compare to candidates past now. I was on Daily Kos constantly in 2004 - Bush was almost literally Satan back then. Now he's not so bad, in hindsight. People would have been saying the same shit any time a third party candidate in the debates would be brought up. It's never going to be the right time.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

Man lots of super interesting ideas about democracy in here.

So I guess we'd be better off just adopting the two party system as part of our country's governing DNA, then? I guess that way we could make the process easier for rich folks who want to thug their way to power (not that it wasn't already easy enough for Hillary).

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Man lots of super interesting ideas about democracy in here.

So I guess we'd be better off just adopting the two party system as part of our country's governing DNA, then? I guess that way we could make the process easier for rich folks who want to be in charge (not that it wasn't already easy enough for Hillary).

No, but the point is, if you want to change that, you have to change the First Past the Post system. The only thing that voting third party can possibly achieve is eventually having a different party as one of the two dominant ones.

 

[DJKhaled]

Johnson isn't a joke candidate, Stein on the otherhand...

Johnson is the biggest joke candidate there is

 

[Soapbox Killer]

People say the same shit about pretty much every candidate that isn't theirs, every presidential election. There's never going to be a perfect election where it'll be "safe" to let in a third party candidate. Romney was the devil 4 years ago, McCain/Palin before that, and Bush before that. I've voted in every election since Bush/Gore (voted Nader), and the story is always the same. I'm not sure what the solution is, but continually passing it off to the next election certainly isn't the answer. We as a nation need to decide whether or not it's important to have more than two possible choices in our presidential elections.

While in principle I agree with you, Donald Trump is an altogether different candidate. Romney, Clinton, Bush, Obama, not the biggest difference amongst them despite what the left-wingers might tell you and the right doesn't want to admit.

HOWEVER,

Make no mistake, Donald Trump is Sheev Palpatine in the flesh.

 

[ascii42]

No, but the point is, if you want to change that, you have to change the First Past the Post system. The only thing that voting third party can possibly achieve is eventually having a different party as one of the two dominant ones.

Or the two parties attempt to swallow up the third party votes. See the Southern Strategy, where the Republican party swallowed up former Democrats. Not the most positive of examples, granted.

Johnson is the biggest joke candidate there is

Johnson's got two terms as Governor as experience. What does any other third party candidate have?