In addition to contributing very little "value added" to the debates, minor party candidates also suck time away from a substantive exchange of ideas between the two candidates who actually have a shot.

Example: I want to know how Ron Saxton intends to pay for Head Start, State Police expansion, and other programs he has advocated. In a 90 minute debate between two candidates, there is a strong likelihood that he'll be pinned down on this question. In a 90 minute debate between four or five candidates, he'll have just enough time to repeat his talking points and gloss over the details.

Some have proposed the solution of adding more debates. (1) This doesn't solve the problem presented by Cayote and Maurer that minor party candidates are unaccountable for what they advocate. And (2) it's just unrealistic to expect candidates to debate six or seven times. Debates require an enormous amount of preparation and candidates have voters to meet, events to attend, money to raise, etc. Plus, (3) I'm not even sure more debates solves the problem, since this will just multiply the number of venues in which candidates can repeat their talking points without any chance of getting into a substantive, meaningful discussion of the issues.

Wow. I am agog at the true lack of understanding of democracy on this site. the number of posters who show distaste for representative democrarcy here is simply amazing.

the suggestion that minor parties should not be included in debates because they "can say whatever they want and don't have to govern" is a non-sequitur. it is total excuse for business as usual and i am disappointed that folks would acutally buy that. it is patently absurd.

it reminds me of the argument: "you have nothing to worry about if you aren't doing anything wrong" in regards to wiretapping. the crux of the argument is the same. and it is piss poor. someday, us third parties WILL be governing, no thanks to idiots like coyote and steven m above. and i don't use idiots lightly. steve m says: "This doesn't solve the problem presented by Cayote and Maurer that minor party candidates are unaccountable for what they advocate." YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. major party candidates are not even accountable for what they DO and you want to exclude minor party candidate because they are not accountable for what they SAY? you're an ass. maybe you should move to north korea.

Steve,

don't worry about the spelling error. Correct spelling doesn't do much to help the dim logic of your posts.

Did you flunk debate class in junior high? Apparently you've retained that same skill level.

Example: I want to know how Ron Saxton intends to pay for Head Start, State Police expansion, and other programs he has advocated. In a 90 minute debate between two candidates, there is a strong likelihood that he'll be pinned down on this question. In a 90 minute debate between four or five candidates, he'll have just enough time to repeat his talking points and gloss over the details.

What is wrong with 2 party debates AND at least one debate with the minor party candidates? It was done when Barbara Roberts was elected Gov. It was done when Ron Wyden was first elected US Senator.

If Ted has reason to be worried about Joe Keating, it is because he hasn't given more speeches like the one to State Central Comm.---and that is a situation easily remedied.

I knew people who really appreciated the woman 3rd party candidate in the race between Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith in Jan. 1996. "Down to earth" was the most common comment I heard, along with statements indicating she might be closer to the answer to that famous poll question "cares about people like me, understands my problems" than either Ron or Gordon.

Regardless of what has been said on this site trying to read the minds of those who register NAV, sometimes it is just because voters are fed up--belonged to one party and got fed up but have no use for any other party. These voters matter in general elections!

Standard Republican vs Democratic debates aren't remotely theatrical. All they argue about is the minutia governance... tax policy vs the beneficial effects of subsidized education. Most voters find this (insert my best Valley-Girl imitation here) boooooreeeerrrring. Gag me with a spoon! Or at least change the channel. Starret has the media savvy to spice it up, and Joe Keating (who I have known for over a decade) has some very interesting things to say. Ted would look good in such a debate because my guess is he'd look a lot more comfortable on that stage than Ron Saxton would.

I've repeated it before and I'll repeat it again. We have a two party system...pick one. Unfortunately we do not have a system in which a 3rd party is not a viable candidate. Yes there are a few Independant candidates out there that do something with a statewide campaign but nationally they aren't a factor. You're never going to see a 3rd party make any noise unless there was a major scandal or something of that nature and everyone defects the party and jumps on with another party. Unless we adopt a parliamentary system there will never be more than 2 party rule. I know I'll get flamed for saying this but honestly...if you vote for a 3rd party candidate you're spitting on a 5 alarm fire. It is nothing more than wasting your vote. All 3rd parties are good for is swinging an election the other way. That's why Republicans finance signature gathering ops for parties likely to take votes away from Democrats and why I want Mary Starret on the ballot to take away votes from Saxton.

Jeff, you and I agree on This issue. IMO debates with party only mandated; you get sound bytes that are artificial and meaningless to actuality. I saw the best of modern debaters, William Jefferson Clinton and his words were pure fiction, and any similarity to his governing and what he spoke in debates was purely coincidental. Along with that what would be wrong with debates and no primary, all on the November Ballot and winner takes all? Hell, if I had my way advertising would be verboten...No sound bytes? How refreshing. Town hall debates from July, 4th to November, we might even get to know who is running.

Wow! Lincoln-Douglas days again? With town hall debates there needs not be a 1 hour or 2 hour debate..let them expand their arguments from the questions from the audience. Of course TV restraints and advance notice of questions are the norm.YUK I don't know where you came from but Clinton never lived up being a democrat, other concern for the poor?heh....a fine republican he was, indeed. Why the repugs disliked him so much..amazing.

More significant than the percentage of registered voters who vote neither Democrat nor Republican is the percentage of eligible voters who don't vote at all. In national elections, this percentage has been (in recent times) about 50%. It's my understanding that this 50% is demographically similar to labor-based, populist parties in Europe and elsewhere. If debates included parties that argued for, e.g., single-payer-universal healthcare, significant reduction of corporate power, less spending for the military and more for domestic needs, an end to NAFTA-like "trade" deals (remember Perot), etc., all popular issues, a huge new wave of voters could be attracted to the political arena, and Democrats might be moved back to the political center from the right-wing Republican-lite position they've staked out.

My 2-cents

Let them debate.

Approx. 25% of the population of Oregon is not part of the 2-party system. What these 3rd party candidates might say something that would cause a great exodus of voters not to vote for Teddy K or Ron Saxton. I truly think not. Maybe Mary Starett might get 80000 votes, Morley and Keating might get that together; that might be a total of approx. 8%, if we have a record 100% turnout; it will be a higher percentage with the lower turnout. So if there is a record low turnout, or the 66%+ turnout or a record turnout; will translate the balance would still favor Teddy K.

But the real scare for us progressive/liberals is to get our neighbors to vote and not having 3rd party candidates debating—since we do have a greater under-vote in years that are non-presidential elections. The Republicans will work very hard on their GOTV to deal with their double negative—having 3% less voters then the Democrats; and having Morley and Starett nibbling off a portion of the conservative base of voters.

So what if the Greens or the Libertarians or Constitution party candidates get a slight bump in the results in November--let them all debate equally and without bias.

On a related subject:

http://politicsupdates.blogs.oregonlive.com/default.asp?item=181968

I've yet to witness anything resembling a true debate in contemporary politics.

As has been often said, they are better described as dueling press conferences.

As long as the campaigns control the formats, and the sponsors continue to use these same lousy formats, voters will continue to read tea leaves and hope that spontaneity and substantive argument make an appearance...however brief.

"Debates" are fun to watch but viewers and pundits sound more like theatre critics in the "post-debate analysis" than citizens and, well, analysts.

2, 3, 12 parties? Doesn't matter. Start by changing the formats and actually creating substantive debates.

Most other Western democracies have multiple parties that hold seats in their legislatures and have other claims to legitimacy. Jeez, when I lived in the Czech Republic in the early 90s, there was a Free Beer party that actually got people elected to some offices.

When you have three or more legitimate political parties, you frequently end up with coalition governments. An empire, however, cannot function very well if governed by a coalition. There has been an understanding among the major political parties, the media, the key industries and unions and other elements of the establishment that to maintain an American Empire, third parties must not be allowed to develop any strength. Thus, you have to keep them out of debates.

As Kari experienced, holding a debate with several different candidates can result in chaos or anarchy. Just think what would happen if you had several different parties represented in a government. For the major lobbying powers, it would be like herding cats.

It's not too hard to connect the dots between the two-party system and much of our imperial ventures.

I say let them debate. They might even bring up some real issues and cause the major candidates to "come out" a little more. It would at least make the debates more fun to watch.

"...if you vote for a 3rd party candidate you're spitting on a 5 alarm fire."

I think Joe Lieberman (running as a Teddy Roosevelt Independent) is the exception to the rule.

Let's not call a republic a democracy. They are very different and I believe that we are being naive if we don't appreciate the control the Republicrats have over us.

Let Mary and the other Joe debate along with the Libertarian.

We only pass this way once.

Chris,

Teddy Roosevelt, with the help of other Republicans(Gifford Pinchot and Albert Beveridge) created the "Bull Moose" Progressive Party; after pro-business political cronies of President William Taft stole the nomination from him in the 1912 Republican Convention. More important, Teddy pulled a majority of liberal/progressives out of the Republican Party that it took on a much more pro-big business/conservative cast for the next generation. Leading to Woodrow Wilson "minority of the popular vote" to win of the presidency in 1912.

Yes, this example is the most extreme measure of a 3rd party taking a huge portion of the electrate; but it was out of disgust and replusion of the Republican Party(and their political agenda) that a huge exodus of thier base turned them and a very popular former President(formerly of that party) was speaking the truth about how pro big-business agenda has taken root in government; how it was calling the shots, and hurting the American dream and family; that led them to vote "3rd party".

Wow---a possible replay of history a century latter.

We are not victims of our democracy. We were born into a system built by now dead white men. We have the ability to change it and do what is right for our world right now.

Our times are too complex to continue such juvenile discussion about generalizing everyone who is not from a corporate sponsored political party as crazy. Are we so short on patience and attention span that we feel we can only handle information in 30 second chunks from familiar candidates?

Are the opinions of "unelectable" individuals unimportant and without worth?

I am uncomfortable with the idea that leadership will only come from one of the two parties that have undermined logic and reason in creating and maintaining systems of education, health, and welfare for generations. I refuse to believe that only the democrats and republicans can produce candidates who can turn the corner on the nonsense that surrounds us as I watch and hear them: justify and sometimes champion war, promote non-solutions to growing problems with education, criminal justice, environmental sustainability, and healthcare.

The debates are revenue generating programs for newspaper and television corporations. These corporations only responsibility is to generate revenue. It is irresponsible for citizens to accept mainstream media as the main or only facilitators for debates; or even for thoughtful discussions.

I will individually and independently explore the platforms and past performances of each candidate that I can learn about. I will vote for the best candidate according to my opinion. I encourage all citizens to do the same.

When we have the time and gall to label Ralph Nader an amateur, we truly do miss the point of civic involvement and forward thinking. For my children's sake, I hope that all citizens begin voting, and voting for the best candidates. Then our collective voice and reason will win.

Brad, Why can't you work within a party to change the party?

Steven Maurer: "Mr. Campbell's view that half of Americans are in favor of Eurpoean-style social welfare programs, and declined to vote against Bush and Republicans for the last 6 years because they too can't tell the difference between the parties, is - to put it mildly - completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever."

Gallup polls directly prior to the 2004 election concluded that about 10% of voters said their choice would be based on the candidate's "agendas/ideas/platforms/goals"; 6% for Bush voters, 13% for Kerry voters. The rest would vote for what the industry calls "qualities" or "values," which are the political equivalents of toothpaste ads. The reason for this is the dominance of our political system by a well funded and effective public relations industry, in collusion with both major parties.

It's easy to knock down a strawman. I never said that the non-voters could "see no difference" between the parties, although Gallup certainly makes the point that people who did vote saw the difference as one of personality rather than substance. Nor did I say anything about "Eurpoean-style social welfare programs". I spoke rather of populist Americanbold issues that have been ignored by both major parties.

My primary point was that the 50% of the eligible voters who don't vote are demographically similar to those in Europe and elsewhere who belong to labor-based, populist parties. I repeat: If debates included parties that argued for historically popular American issues like single-payer-universal healthcare, significant reduction of corporate power, less spending for the military and more for domestic needs, and an end to NAFTA-like "trade" deals (none of which is "European style social welfare"), many more voters would vote, and Democrats might be moved back to the political center.

Garrett,

I could work within a party to change the party. However, I have found that doing so exposes me to pressure to change my ideas for the "collective good" of the party. Sometimes compromise is not so great. Sometimes there is simply a right versus a wrong. The Democratic Party has been an uninspired letdown in my life experience. The green party has been divided and unfocused for much of my lifetime. So I now focus most on being a good citizen, making responsible choices, and engaging in productive discussions and actions to try and help our society move towards justice and sustainability.

Steven Maurer: "People ignore issues. Remember? We just agreed about that."

I suggest that, before you launch into a rant in response to something, you carefully read what people have to say. Unlike you, apparently, I am not an elitist who believes that only people with an elite education like yours or mine can understand "the most basic things about social policy". What I said, if you care, is this: "The reason for this [that only 10% of people voted for Bush/Kerry based on agendas/ideas/platforms/goals]is the dominance of our political system by a well funded and effective public relations industry, in collusion with both major parties."

In other words, people don't vote on issues because the issues that people care most about are not discussed during campaigns, because campaigns are run by the same people who sell us toothpaste. This is a very different argument than "pepole are too stupid to vote for issues".

Steven Maurer: "I have no doubt that a vast majority of Americans want free health case. But when Republicans poll people, a vast majority want their taxes cut in half too. In other words, over half of Americans want a free lunch, and don't understand why they can't get it."

I said nothing about "free" health care, if you care to check. Single payer, universal coverage, which I received when I lived in Canada and which my European wife received prior to moving here, is not "free", nor is it "government-run", nor is it some other kind of neocon catch-phrase. The US system costs double what it costs in many other countries, and health outcomes here are notoriously poor for all but the very rich. I recommend that you look into the Sheila Kuehl health care bill in California if you doubt any of this.

I contend that the reason so many people buy into the anti-tax arguments is that they (correctly) see that the system is rigged in favor of the diversion of wealth to the richest from the rest of us. It seems that only the elite classes fail to understand this.

As long as members of the third party's and NAVs are having their tax dollars taken to support the Dems and Repugnicans then they have some points in the arguement that all candidates be included in all the debates. But first they should be arguing that their dollars not be used to support the primaries. the sock puppet

In case anyone is interested, the gubenatorial candidates from the Constitution, Libertarian, and Pacific Green parties will be participating in a forum, at the Portland Community College Cascade campus on Monday, October 30th, from 11-1, in the Moriarty Arts Building auditorium. Along with discussing their platforms, and issues, they will be addressing the issue of minor parties and the two party system. There is no charge for the event.

Well, I am happy to see that something of a democractic spirit remains here, if a bit sporadic. Still, the few give me hope.

But of course, as several here have argued, whatever the virtues of the principles of democracy may be, the real politik of the day demands we retain this absurd quasi-two party system. This permits us to choose between sending our young to foreign nations with a smile or a frown. Personally, if we are going to be an empire and my only choice is between the kind of face we put on it, I prefer a frown - it's more honest after all. But really, if the real politik arguments presented are going to be accepted, why not just do away with the election all together? Its not like the constitution is going to be too great an obstacle... I suppose there is something to pretending we are a democracy since we (both parties) do claim to export it, but look, why not just hold more talent contests - no need to rock the boat with this unnecessary change of leadership.

Just think, if we could just really get behind our one leader we would be much more unified as compared with how we are split by two leaders! With one leader, we could...

...well we could conquer the world! Now, wouldn't that be grand!

<h2>No, sorry, I cannot accept any candidate that does not stand for debates that are open to anyone running. I don't mind 20 candidates, I can keep track of the BS and the demagoguery, and strangely, I have just enough faith in my neighbor to work it all out for him or herself, too! Anyhow, given the quality of most of our politicians now, Dems too, we would be better off just drawing names from a hat and giving them the positions directly.</h2>