Boycotting debates!!!

I'm not watching a debate that does not include all of the candidates.

I have heard the polls arguement before, and I think it's BS!
The debates should include any candidate who is on the ballot in 66% of the states. Not just the top two boneheads because the have managed to successfully divided the country.

These types of debates do the public a dis-service by only allowing the people to see the two sides of the same coin!

While I understand it is unfair that only the Democrat and Republican candidates are awarded the ability to debate, it seems unwise to boycott.

Sure, as long as these two parties are the most powerful of the many, the majority will only hear or pay attention to their statements. This is for a few reasons, most people don't do extensive research into the choices each candidate makes and the plans each candidate has. Another reason is that it is generally understood that it is one of the top two candidates who will win the elction. Not voting for either the Republican or Democrat would be throwing away ones vote.

However, to boycott a political debate is rediculous. Through that debate, a person can become more informed of the positions each candidate takes and decide which candidate best fits his/her needs. Voting is a powerful tool in sculpting a world which suits your needs, ignoring the options you have or picking an option without taking a good look at what your choice will bring forth is not only hurting the rest of your nation, but yourself as well.

Look at each candidate, see what they're all about. Vote inteligently. Or as they say here at ATS, "deny ignorance."

Originally posted by SkyFox2
Through that debate, a person can become more informed of the positions each candidate takes and decide which candidate best fits his/her needs.

That is correct, but if a debate does not include ALL of the qualified candidates, then it is a bogus debate. If either of the two yahoos that the mainstream forces on you don't fit a persons needs, then you are left to choosing the lesser of two evils, which is an unacceptable option.

Originally posted by SkyFox2
This is for a few reasons, most people don't do extensive research into the choices each candidate makes and the plans each candidate has.

And thanks to the partisan debate system, they never will be allowed to become educated on all of the available options.

Originally posted by SkyFox2
Look at each candidate, see what they're all about. Vote inteligently. Or as they say here at ATS, "deny ignorance."

We should be able to look at all the candidates. Regardless of poll numbers, but solely based on the fact that they have become excepted as valid candidates by the majority of states.
How do you Deny Ignorance when it is crammed down your throat?

While the debate did not include all candidates on the ballots, you were able to learn a bit about the two candidates which were allowed to attend. If, from that debate, you learned that one of the two shared your interests and would be achieving your goals in office, then the debate was certainly useful. If, however, you learned that neither accuratly represent you or your opinions, then you have learned you must seek another candidate. Either way, the debate is useful.

It isn't necessarily fair to only be able to see the two debate, but the election itself shouldn't be based on a single debate, anyhow. Who you vote for will decide how your future plays out, knowing this, you should look at each person running. If you do not, then it is isn't ignorance which is being cramed down your throat, you are voluntarily consuming it.

Everyone has the ability to find out more about who is running and how they want to shape our nation. It's not necessary to watch a debate on television to decide who is the best pick. There is the Internet, panthlets, books, newpapers or even the voting records within congress which can show you what they've done and you can make an educated guess as to what they will do. The aired political debates are helpful, but still not necessary.

Those who make rash judgments and refuse to listen to the argument are wholey under informed. You must look at the bigger picture, not just the underdogs or the big dogs. If you expect to make a decision which will prove to be a good one, you must critically examine any information which you can...and this political debate, as unfair as it may be, is information there for each to study.

Don't be biased, don't be irrational, don't let your efforts be shown as fruitless. Look at, listen to, *feel* everything. That is the only way you can make an accurate judgment.

I agree with both. I'd watch anyway for my own satisfaction. But I think the exclusion of all but the two "main parties" is one of the big reasons that we're locked into this so-called "2 party system". Nobody else gets the funding or air time that the big 2 get. I think more should be qualified to run, no 527s and all candidates should get the same tv exposure, regardless of funding. They can say anything they want in the media because that's dependant on when and where reporters show up to cover something. But on tv all candidates should get one 5 minute spot per week to say what they want to say. No frills, graphics, special effects. Just the candidate at a podium speaking their piece for 5 minutes on any issue. No smearing allowed. 5 minutes to tell people what you will do. Period. No fireside chats or televised interviews. No 60 Minutes profiles. I think this would force people to be more involved both in campaign volunteerism and personal research. It would also remove money from the equation to an extent so that the only really viable candidates aren't a couple of rich white guys with no other real competition.

I've seen people talking about revolution, leaving the country, dictatorships and other crazy things. What we really need to do is change the process by which our leaders are chosen. There might be some really qualified people out there who can't bankroll a serious run at the whitehouse.

As for the debates, they don't really accomplish much, in my view. What I'd like to see is the entire time (2 minutes?) used strictly to speak about what the candidate will do. Not 50-60 seconds worth of time used to rag on the other candidate with the rest being used to outline their plan. The whole 2 minutes should be the speaker talking only about himself and what his plan is. Surely it can't be so hard to fill up 2 minutes with substantive information.

If we don't change this sytem that's got us in a rut, we're never going to have an election of real choice.