It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are there no Libertarian party debates on network tv?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Why are there no Libertarian party debates on network tv?

Just wondering. There are more than 2 parties in the United States.




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I thought Rand Paul was a Libertarian. He dropped out.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Many Libertarians are part of the two parties. There are more that identify Republican than Independent.
edit on 7-2-2016 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

We're sold the 'two party' system. They don't state that but obviously, from others outside point of view, something is missing.

From the official point of view, its better we argue amongst ourselves divisively, than unite against the government.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

More than two parties just would not work with the American system. It's possible one of the two parties fails and is replaced, but in the end you are left with two parties again.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Why can't we have multiple parties on TV?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

You can. You just need to pay for the time since so few people care they would not tune in. As I said, a 3rd party can not work in US politics. It would require an existing party be destroyed ... bringing us back to 2 parties.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The same reason everything remains the same, and never changing. I'm starting to believe a perpetual motion machine has actually been achieved, time to rewrite the physics books, and it spans world wide throughout all politics - but to answer your question, because they won't win.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Because if there is a dirty word in American politics, it's "liberty".



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Why are there no Libertarian party debates on network tv?


The simple answer is because the Libertarian party doesn't have enough members/voters to sell advertising for a Libertarian debate. The complicated answer is that the two parties refuse to give the Libertarian party any more time and attention than absolutely necessary. I think the fact that so many Republicans are playing small "L" libertarian tells us otherwise.

On the plus side, Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green Party) have filed a lawsuit for the candidates of their respective parties (Libertarian and Green Party) to be part of the General Election debates, which usually only include Democrats and Republicans. The Presidential Debate Commission limits eligible candidates to only those polling above 15%. Gary and Jill think keeping other candidates off the debates is a big part of why third parties can't get any traction, and is one reason people don't think third parties can win.

Libertarians, Greens ready lawsuit against Commission on Presidential Debates


The Libertarian Party and Green Party and their 2012 candidates for president are readying a legal complaint against the Commission on Presidential Debates, hoping that a new legal argument -- an anti-trust argument -- will break the "duopoly" that's dominated the stage. The legal complaint, which was sent early to The Washington Post, argues that a "cognizable political campaign market" is being corrupted by the commission's rules. The commission, a private entity set up after the League of Women Voters' 1992 debates allowed third party candidate Ross Perot to participate, has withstood yearly assaults from the likes of Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, and former Congressman Bob Barr. None of them have gotten past a 1999 commission rule: No candidate gets onstage unless he or she is polling at 15 percent or better.


I think this election year especially, more people than ever would give third parties another look, and especially Gary Johnson, who served a very respectable two terms as Governor of New Mexico as a Republican... before the Republican Party left him and the values he holds dear.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrptr

More than two parties just would not work with the American system. It's possible one of the two parties fails and is replaced, but in the end you are left with two parties again.

Candidates should represent the people, not some 'party' or other.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea


The Presidential Debate Commission limits eligible candidates to only those polling above 15%. Gary and Jill think keeping other candidates off the debates is a big part of why third parties can't get any traction, and is one reason people don't think third parties can win.

Designed to favor the wealthiest, those with the most money get more publicity.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Most libertarians in the US at this point in history are frustrated republicans. For libertarianism to flourish, a true free market must exist, and we have not had a real free market in the US for decades.

So there is nowhere for a real libertarian to go. Many of the self-described libertarians I have talked with are still holding onto the myth of an actual free market in the US, and most of them have bought the right-wing propaganda that the GOP is the protector of free markets. Hence that apparent attraction.

But we don't have a free market in the US, so real libertarians are in a tough spot.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic


So there is nowhere for a real libertarian to go. Many of the self-described libertarians I have talked with are still holding onto the myth of an actual free market in the US, and most of them have bought the right-wing propaganda that the GOP is the protector of free markets. Hence that apparent attraction.


I've noticed that myself. I think people confuse small "L" libertarian with big "L" Libertarian. Some Republicans don't even realize there is an official Libertarian Party, and tend to use "libertarian" to siginify the socially liberal/fiscally conservative branch of the Republican Party (and themselves), rather than the socially & fiscally conservative. I've wondered if that's just the folks I know, if it's a regional thing, or what.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
The Libertarian Party has 300K registered voters and about 100K of what it considers members. They have no voting primaries and meet in October to pick a delegate. What would the point of nationally televised party debate be?

They normally take 0% percent of the vote (1% once) in the national election. If you set the bar that low for letting people in say the national presidential debates then you would have to let in anybody from the other 3 dozen or more parties. And while a debate with the Black Panther Party, the Socialist Party, the National Socialist Party, the Pirate Party, the Libertarian Party, the Prohibition Party etc. would be fun. It would not be realistic.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
True historical libertarianism is anarchism, not this strangely modern American conservative phenomenon that has hijacked the name. There will never be a time when corporate controlled media will allow open and public debate where the question of the legitimacy of the system itself is entertained. Too many vested interests.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

That depends on the libertarian.

Some draw their basis from The constitution, John Locke and the like

Some draw their basis from Milton Friedman and utilitarian motives like erasing welfare with negative income taxes

Some draw their basis from Rothbard and his writings about how anarcho-capitalism would work.

What binds them is that they would prefer Locke over hobbes or marx.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How about we get rid of the party system altogether & vote based on policy. Crazy concept, I know.

Long live the Political Industrial Complex!



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Because the Libertarian Party, as a political organization, is completely inept. They don't know how to organize or motivate their own membership, nor can they present a coherent and consistent message to the public.

In short, no one takes them seriously. It isn't for lack of money or popularity--it's due to a lack of effective leadership. Not surprising, coming from a political philosophy that views the very concept of "leadership" with some degree of contempt (with which I sympathize).



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

It's true. libertarians are lacking in the groupthink and civic duty department. libertarians by their nature won't show up in big groups. They do not feel obligated by religion, nationalism, patriotism or civic duty. Nor do they feel obligated by oppression, equality, free stuff or racial identity. They miss that emotional passion/obligation that makes people show up for politics.

Here is a simpler reason libertarians are not on tv. The ratings, for the average voters it'd be a snoozefest.

Lastly it always politically easier to promise something that can be seen. The broken window fallacy can be expanded in size. It's a lot easier to see that tax money get sucked up and spent to build a building, It's a lot harder to see where that money would have went if spent privately. There will be people who are passionate about that building, it is unlikely there will be outrage about that extra dollar in taxes per person.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join