flynn23 wrote:
] noteworthy wrote:
] ] Who said anything about equality? I didn't.
] you implied that since they have the ability to appear on news
] channels and have their own websites extolling their views,
] that somehow this is the same as appearing in the televised
] debate.

You said "Let these alternative viewpoints be heard!"

My point was that no one is supressing anything. An interested voter has multiple low/no-cost ways to learn more about all of the candidates.

] that's not the point. what good is a name on the ballot if you
] haven't had the same amount of exposure to that name's ideals?

This is not the purpose of a ballot. You seem to have this misconception of forced equality regarding elections.

] I think that candidates should engage in more freeform
] debates like they used to in the early part of the 20th century.

This sounds like a good idea. It might be fun for the viewer.

The problem is that it's not an effective use of time for the leading candidates. They simply aren't interested in that sort of thing. Their time is better spent on the trail, one on one with the people.

You can't expect Bush and Kerry to stand around silent and idle for 80% of the time, while Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader rant on.

] If anything, I can support each party's nominee appearing. I'd
] even support a minimum polling number for support, say 5%, to
] qualify.

I don't know what you mean by "each party". There are tons of parties. No one wants to listen to an N-way debate. Just imagine how long it would take for everyone to rebut the rebuttal of the rebuttal to another's rebuttal to an answer to the first question. Even if you could somehow convince all these people to stand around in the same room for 90 minutes, you'd only be able to ask each one a single question.

If you did set a 5% minimum, the debates would have been just Bush and Kerry.

If and when a "third party" candidate has serious support, they are included in the debates and given media coverage. Surely you remember Stockdale's famous line, "Who am I? Why am I here?"

If you opened it up to anyone, you'd simply drive out the top candidates, and then no one would tune in, and the networks would probably refuse to carry it.

] Tell me honestly, if you were looking for a CEO candidate for
] your workplace,

This analogy is ill-fitting for a couple of reasons. The task of CEO selection is generally in the hands of the existing CEO or a few key board members. Also, I've never heard of someone selecting their CEO by having an N-way debate among a bunch of candidates. The standard practice is to interview each one of them individually, talk to their references, review their record, and so on. Finally, CEO selection is often part negotiation. When it comes to being POTUS, there's no haggling over the salary or the benefits package.

RE: Badnarik & Cobb arrested at debate in STL