Gary Johnson should attend debate and then walk on stage

[Havax]

He should get a seat in attendance in the audience and when the next debate starts, he should just walk on stage and stand in between the podiums until they forcibly take him off. It would be worldwide news and bring attention to the issue. Otherwise, nothing is ever going to change.

It would be unprofessional. Some would be disgusted. But most will wake up to the fact that it's absurd we only let 2 people debate.

 

[torchbearer]

ask Badnarik what happens when you try that.

 

[specsaregood]

He should get a seat in attendance in the audience and when the next debate starts, he should just walk on stage and stand in between the podiums until they forcibly take him off. It would be worldwide news and bring attention to the issue. Otherwise, nothing is ever going to change.

It would be unprofessional. Some would be disgusted. But most will wake up to the fact that it's absurd we only let 2 people debate.

yeah, cuz ya know the secret service would let somebody get that far.

 

[RickyJ]

He would never make it to the stage. It is fine to be there for before or after debate commentary where he can get a chance to say something, but to try to interrupt a planned debate in progress will only make him look like a nut to most Americans.

 

[DeMintConservative]

It would be unprofessional. Some would be disgusted. But most will wake up to the fact that it's absurd we only let 2 people debate.

Who are "we"? Collectivist much?

There's no law about political debates.

It's a private arrangement. People have the right to debate whoever they want and networks have the right to decide what debates they want to broadcast and who to invite to participate in them. Or, as it happens, to agree on some sort of governing body to set those rules aprioristically.

There's no right to be part of political debates and it's bizarre to see this kind of stance repeatedly defended on a website supposedly populated with libertarians.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Who are "we"? Collectivist much?

There's no law about political debates.

It's a private arrangement. People have the right to debate whoever they want and networks have the right to decide what debates they want to broadcast and who to invite to participate in them. Or, as it happens, to agree on some sort of governing body to set those rules aprioristically.

There's no right to be part of political debates and it's bizarre to see this kind of stance repeatedly defended on a website supposedly populated with libertarians.

Nor is anybody suggesting that we make a law to force third party candidates onto the debate stage. We are simply expressing displeasure and protest at the idea that 15% is the bar for inclusion in a debate. Sure, the CPD is private, but it essentially determines who the public sees as viable in the race for the Presidency - it is our moral imperative, and essential to the survival of this nation, that our Presidency be seen as an office accessible to any candidate with a reasonable enough show of support to gain ballot access in enough states to statistically win the seat. The CPD isn't some free market enterprise, it's the creature of two political parties who receive a maelstrom of assistance from the public sector and happen to dominate the national dialogue by sole virtue of their exclusionary tactics in all arenas of political discourse and exercise.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

ask Badnarik what happens when you try that.

This. He was arrested before he even got into the building.

 

[AFPVet]

My thoughts are that all parties and Independents should be allowed to debate—even if they don't last long. People should be given the chance to debate the issues.

 

[DeMintConservative]

@Nathan Hale:
I like the 15% threshold. I have no interest in watching debates featuring candidates with no chance of even becoming competitive. I'd take the same decision if I was a network executive. I'm always irked by all those primary debates featuring 12 guys on the stage. It's a total mess.

Ending any public subsidies to parties and political candidacies, including matching funds, is a noble cause.

Attacking the GOP and the Dem party for defending their interest strikes me as kind of silly.

In fact, I think it's 100% irrelevant: even if the CPD decided that every candidate could enter the debates, the networks would simply refuse to carry the CPD debates and invite the major candidates to their own debates.

This is the market working. Nobody wants to lose time watching guys that nobody is planning to vote for.

If a candidate for president wants to get free prime-time air time he needs to do two things:
- get the nomination of one of the two major parties, which implies the active support of dozens of millions of voters
- garner enough popular attention and support as a 3rd party candidate without that free air-time.

Basically you need to prove yourself first. Seems plenty of fair to me.

 

[MozoVote]

Google for what happened when Nader was offered a ticket to be a guest and tried to come in.

 

[DeMintConservative]

My thoughts are that all parties and Independents should be allowed to debate—even if they don't last long. People should be given the chance to debate the issues.

Should be given the chance by whom?

Everybody can organize a debate and broadcast it. Everybody has the right to try it. Nobody should be under the obligation of doing so.

 

[MozoVote]

My thoughts are that all parties and Independents should be allowed to debate—even if they don't last long. People should be given the chance to debate the issues.

Everyone?

 

[AFPVet]

All I am saying is that the general election debates should be just like the primary debates. Keep in mind, no one is forcing anyone to do anything... if the Libertarian Party candidate wants to debate, he/she should be allowed to do so. At the very least, they should invite the LP candidate.

 

[Qdog]

Nobody is going to get to 15% without either being in the debates, or being the D or R nominee. Maybe a billionaire. Perot did it, but he was allowed in the debates. They changed the rules to 15% to get into the debates after that to prevent another Perot. Hell, if Ron Paul announced he was running as Indy tomorrow he would be hard pressed to pull 15%. Its rigged this way on purpose... to protect the duopoly.

 

[trey4sports]

lol, yeah.

There isn't anything stopping a bystander from walking onto a presidential debate stage...

 

[MozoVote]

I think in the 2008 or 2012 primaries there was a minor candidate who snuck in, and tried to answer a question from the moderator. It was just barely enough of a disturbance that viewers could sense a "delay" in the proceedings. But with mics turned down and no camera angles, the "intruder" was quickly hustled out of the auditorium.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Lol. This isn't 2004.

 

[Nathan Hale]

@Nathan Hale:
I like the 15% threshold. I have no interest in watching debates featuring candidates with no chance of even becoming competitive. I'd take the same decision if I was a network executive. I'm always irked by all those primary debates featuring 12 guys on the stage. It's a total mess.

But 15% isn't an appropriate threshold if that is your goal. Candidates who poll at 1% can become competitive if given the opportunity, but there simply isn't a level playing field for them. Setting viability at ballot access in enough states to theoretically win the election creates a bar that allows in only one or two more candidates each cycle. And honestly, if the system requires two viable candidates only, then it's the system to blame, not the third candidate.

Attacking the GOP and the Dem party for defending their interest strikes me as kind of silly.

Their interest is control over the government. I don't consider it quite so silly.

In fact, I think it's 100% irrelevant: even if the CPD decided that every candidate could enter the debates, the networks would simply refuse to carry the CPD debates and invite the major candidates to their own debates.

That's just not true. The debates used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters and everything was fine. The CPD took it over because the League got uppity about their ability to invite other candidates. Ever since, the GOP and the Democrat candidate would only attend CPD debates, and the media came running because that's where the action was.

This is the market working. Nobody wants to lose time watching guys that nobody is planning to vote for.

It seems that you're under the impression that we live in a free market.

If a candidate for president wants to get free prime-time air time he needs to do two things:
- get the nomination of one of the two major parties, which implies the active support of dozens of millions of voters
- garner enough popular attention and support as a 3rd party candidate without that free air-time.

Basically you need to prove yourself first. Seems plenty of fair to me.

So you need to either be a celebrity or a billionaire. Great.

 

[Keith and stuff]

@Nathan Hale:
I like the 15% threshold. I have no interest in watching debates featuring candidates with no chance of even becoming competitive. I'd take the same decision if I was a network executive. I'm always irked by all those primary debates featuring 12 guys on the stage. It's a total mess.

Ending any public subsidies to parties and political candidacies, including matching funds, is a noble cause.

Attacking the GOP and the Dem party for defending their interest strikes me as kind of silly.

In fact, I think it's 100% irrelevant: even if the CPD decided that every candidate could enter the debates, the networks would simply refuse to carry the CPD debates and invite the major candidates to their own debates.

This is the market working. Nobody wants to lose time watching guys that nobody is planning to vote for.

If a candidate for president wants to get free prime-time air time he needs to do two things:
- get the nomination of one of the two major parties, which implies the active support of dozens of millions of voters
- garner enough popular attention and support as a 3rd party candidate without that free air-time.

Basically you need to prove yourself first. Seems plenty of fair to me.

That post is so awful that you should be ashamed of it!

 

[muzzled dogg]

ralph nader tried this in boston