Should the 3rd Party candidates be allowed in the Dem v. Repub debates?

[NightWatcher]

Nader is considering peeing in the pool that is the General Election again this year. Cynthia McKinney is running under the Green label. Thom Hartmann and other Progressives think that SOME 3rd party candidates should be included in the debates between the Dem and Repub candidates during the early Fall leading up to the general election.

For those who believe that 3rd Party candidates should be included in the debates I ask, "which ones should be allowed in?". None of the 3rd Parties actually have a chance of winning, so where do we make the cutoff?

Do we allow the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party,....

Here is a list of Parties:
Other parties that have nominated candidates in recent elections
These parties have offered candidates in recent elections, but did not in 2004 (and do not for 2008) have ballot status in enough states to win the presidency normally. Some do not have presidential candidates, but for other offices only

America First Party (2002)
Centrist Party (2006)
Independence Party of America
Jefferson Republican Party
Marijuana Party
Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
Prohibition Party (1867)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
Socialist Equality Party (1953)
Socialist Party USA (1973)
Socialist Workers Party (1938)
Workers World Party (1959)
Working Families Party (1998)

Other parties that have not nominated candidates in recent elections
Some of these parties have nominated candidates in the past, but have not done so recently for various reasons. Others have not yet nominated any candidates.

American Party (1969)
American Heritage Party (2000)
American Patriot Party (2003)
American Reform Party (1997)
Christian Freedom Party (2004)
Christian Falangist Party of America (1985)
Communist Party USA (1919)
Democratic Socialists of America
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1985)
Independent American Party (1998)
Labor Party (1995)
National Socialist Movement (1974)
New American Independent Party (2004)
New Union Party (1974)
Personal Choice Party (1997)
Populist Party of America (2002)
Progressive Labor Party
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
Social Democratic Party of America (2007)
Socialist Action (1983)
Socialist Alternative (1986)
Socialist Labor Party (1876)
Unity08 (2006)
Workers Party, USA
World Socialist Party of the United States (1916)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

[LoZoccolo]

1. None at all, fuck splinterism. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

2. Actually I changed my mind.

All the right-wing ones that want to participate should be able to, but no left-wing ones besides the Democratic Party. I can accept right-wing spoilers.

[LiberalFighter]

16. To be fair -- No.... But does sound extremely fair to include RW :)

[onehandle]

3. Fuck no. nt

[grantcart]

4. no but Lee Mercer should moderate nt

[newmajority]

5. No point in including other candidates. The Media Whores would ignore them anyway.

The real issue is how the debates are moderated, and what questions are asked. I don't know about Lee Mercer as a moderator, but he couldn't do any worse than Leslie Blitzer or Timmiewhore Russert.

When Barack Obama debates John McCain this fall, I want to see REAL issues on the table. And that's not going to happen if the Whore Media is running the show.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. The candidates should be allowed to ask each other questions

That would make it into an actual debate.

[question everything]

19. I know. like "Matt Santos" and "Arnold Vinick" of "The West Wing"

Now that was a debate.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Dupe n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Actually Bartlet vs Ritchie debate in Season 4 was more what I'm talking about

I didn't mind the Santos vs Vinick debate but unscripted the "no rules" thing would be a bit ridiculous. Candidates asking each other questions is really the way to go.

[HughMoran]

6. After the millions spent to find a viable candidate that has proven support?

Fuck no. No Johnny-come-lately clown with 1% support should be allowed to participate. If they have 15% support, then they can participate. If they can't prove their support base - not my problem.

[hayu_lol]

7. Let them organize and fund their own debates...

seems fair to me. Otherwise, we could end up with 100 or more debaters and nothing would be accomplished.

We are a not a parlimentary system. If two parties aren't enough for you, then go back to England/Europe.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. I voted no, but it depends on how well they're polling.

If they're a major candidate, then yes, but if they are polling 20% or less nationally, no.

[chyjo]

10. Depends on amount of support.

If a third party candidate consistently polls at least ten percent I think that it would be wrong to exclude them in the debates. The best example of this would be Perot in 1992 who had the popular support to justify his presence in the debates, whereas Nader in 2000 never reached that level of support. Unfortunately Nader ended up being just as much of a spoiler in the election............

[DiamondJay]

11. Face it. We are a TWO party system.

and get used to it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Actually, that's a ONE party system

with a Democratic wing and a Republican wing.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Lame. n/t

[bunnies]

12. If the party has ballot status and the candidate has notable national support.

They should be allowed to debate. In my (unpopular) opinion.

edit: and the same goes for independents.

[stahbrett]

13. Under the following circumstances:

First, the candidate needs to be a candidate on the ballots of enough states to actually win the election via the Electoral College system that we have.

Second, I would want to overhaul HOW we vote in each state, for both primaries and the general election. I'd like to see "instant runoff voting" or "approval voting", or something along those lines. With such a system, Nader would not hurt the Democratic candidate.

[Kitty Herder]

24. Couldna said it better myself. I agree. nt

[LiberalFighter]

15. Whichever party label Nader runs under NO FW!!

Any other maybe if they have at least 10 or 15% polling.

[question everything]

17. Yes, allow some - depending on their strength

Yes, the polls are not reliable, but not THAT unreliable.

Perot received about 20% of the votes in 1992 and at one point in June 1992 he led in the polls.

Perhaps Nader should have participated in 2000, but not in 2004 or now.

[DutchLiberal]

22. Will memers who vote 'yes' be tracked down and banned by the nazi's?

..er.. I mean, by the moderators?

[formernaderite]

23. At least the Green Party and the Libertarian Party

should participate. The discussion would certainly be livelier and the Greens and Libertarians would force both parties to address those constituencies in their own parties.