Opening up debates benefits voters before going to polls
Tweet
The 2008 presidential debates need to be opened up to more candidates than just from the two major parties. If this happened, Americans would be able to vote for a candidate who really represented their beliefs, not just the one who loosely stood for something they believe in.
If the debates were open, many conservative voters would see that Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party really represented them, not the neo-conservative Republican Party that seems to be focused on expanding government and spending as much as possible. Heck, it’s looking like President Bush may end up being the most socialist president we’ve ever had.
Also, many liberal voters who support Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama would see that independent candidate Ralph Nader is really the only candidate who promises comprehensive health care for all, a real living wage and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
America needs to wake up and realize that there are more than just two candidates, and limiting ourselves to just two corporate-run parties is slowly destroying our political system.
David Switzer
hospitality business junior
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Da Republic
(09/30/08 7:52pm)Report
This s a republic, not a democracy. When will people realize the fact that we are a two party system??? If one wants a democracy, like Italy, be prepared for 50+ presidental candidates. I personally think two is easier to decide from a pool of two.
Bill
(09/30/08 8:53pm)Report
Yea what a horrible idea it is to have more than two candidates in a debate. The problem is that it might make the average person have to pay attention and research who they are voting for. Instead of just picking between two candidates, neither of which is really going to change anything. How dare America actually have a democracy, they should just have one candidate so it is even easier for everyone to choose.
The Commish
(09/30/08 9:16pm)Report
Bill, you’re mistaken we are not a democracy. Please read the consitution and educate yourself.
factcheck.org
(09/30/08 11:50pm)Report
Not all Republicans, or people that vote Republican are extreme conservatives, and not all Democrates, or people that vote Democratic, are true liberals. Does anyone really want Barr or Nadar as President? Barr is too far right and Nadar, while he is a very smart man, he is no President.
On a side note…can anyone tell me what the hell McCain was thinking picking Palin? She is such an idiot. What was he thinking???
Phil Letten
(10/01/08 2:33am)Report
Neither of the two major candidates represents the people. Both are pro-war and anti-freedom. We need to open the debates so more people realize that. If we had Nader, McKinney, Barr, and Baldwin all in the debates it would be obvious that McCain and Obama are nearly the exact same because the third party candidates would actually force them to talk about the issues.
Beau
(10/01/08 7:39am)Report
Why is it that third party supporters have to make themselves sound stupid by saying Repubs and Dems are exactly the same? Yes, many third party candidates are different from the R and D, but this does not mean that R and D are the same.
It makes me cringe because when you make a claim like that, you are guilty of the very thing you say you disdain: creating a black/white two “party” model. One party is the candidate you support, and the other party is everyone else, whom you disagree with.
beau
(10/01/08 8:14am)Report
Please don’t confuse me with the Beau above. He makes some sense where as I usually don’t and only post to inject conflict, especially with Dan. Over and out, that is all.
Joe
(10/01/08 9:40am)Report
While we are indeed a Republic and not a true Democracy, it does not mean we need a two party system. In fact, the founding fathers, most notably George Washington, did not want to see a party system emerge.
Republicans and Democrats are not the same, but wouldn’t it be interesting to hear the ideas from the far left or right? I’d be fascinated to see how the 2 major parties react to the extreme views and if their positions would changed based on the public reaction to others.
Zeke
(10/01/08 10:00am)Report
“If one wants a democracy, like Italy, be prepared for 50+ presidental candidates. I personally think two is easier to decide from a pool of two.”
Yes, yes…having so many candidates would be hard! You’d have to think! Do research! Open the field to more than just those with money! Actually listen to something other than what the media shoves down your ears! Yes, that’s way too hard. Voting should be easy, right? It’s not like we’re picking someone TO LEAD THE COUNTRY.
Oh wait, we are.
Matthew
(10/01/08 10:36am)Report
What a third party candidate (or better yet two, one from each side of the political spectrum) does that has great value is to push the two candidates towards the middle. Contrary to what posters here claim, the overwhelming vast majority of the country is not far left or far right. We are really quite moderate. However, candidates of a two party system, in order to distinguish themselves, often push each other left or right. This is what happened in 92 with Perot. He made Clinton a moderate.