Should Nader be allowed to participate in the debates/media coverage?
Yes
Side Score: 40
Winning Side! |
 |
No
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
6
points
"Indeed, for all their talk of change, the major party candidates operate in that netherworld of centrist politics that is loath to challenge the status quo. Obama, Clinton, and McCain understand full well that corporate interests are the real third-rail of American politics. None of these "mavericks" or "agents of change" come close to Nader's record for taking on corporate power."
Big Business has pushed us into settling for two candidates. Choosing the "lesser of two evils." Well, Nader has always said that choosing the lesser of two evils means that the value of your candidates will continually lower as your standards fall. Vote for what you believe in, not what you expect to win! Coverage of candidates is decided by big multinational corporations, don't let them decide who is the real better candidate. Check the facts, Nader is fighting for us.
Supporting Evidence:
Spoiler Alert: Nader, news frames and third-party politics
(www.collegenews.org)
Side: Yes
Even though he's branded as a "spoiler," he should be able to. Anyone that is qualified should get a voice. Nader makes a lot of points and shifts discussion into topics the major players would never talk about. Every vote for Nader is a vote that signals to the mainstream they're not going down the right path.
Side: Yes
4
points
3
points
The requirement of having 15% support is not possible without getting media coverage. It takes millions of dollars to buy TV commercial time. It is next to impossible for any candidate that is not in the Republican or Democratic party to ever get that level of support. They know that and that is why they set the bar so high. Keep Third Party candidates out of the debate and you eliminate mainstream America from ever hearing what they have to say. It is how it has been since Ross Perot got into the debate. I say let every candidate into the debate and let the people ask the questions. Give every candidate equal time and let the people have access to all candidates running for office. That would be true democracy. If people don't want to listen to what Third Party candidates have to say they can always turn the TV off. Let those with the most support go first and on down the line. At least people would be able to see what is out there and would be able to decide for themselves if they want to hear what cnadidates have to say. Side: yes
I think he should. if he can get a certain percentage of the votes this election he will get more money to have a larger campaign next election which will help break the hold that the republicans and democrats have on office making issues of the country matter in an election Side: yes
1
point
Man, I can't imagine how our country has become stuck in this party mentality where no one who doesn't belong to a side is shut out. Anyone who is worthy to be called a candidate must be given an equal voice. He should be allowed to participate, period, not just stuck to using youtube! Side: yes
|
I agree, he's only going to take away from the Democratic votes and would hurt whatever candidate ends up getting the nomination. This is definitely what ended up causing Gore to lose in 2000. Eventhough Nader didn't win any electoral votes I think he took away from some votes that could have swayed the election the other way.
Side: No
I'm pretty sure that currently the law is that any third party participant needs 15% of public opinion to be able to participate in a debate. I agree with this law -- with only a few supporters, I think if Nader participated in the debates and the election, it would unfairly skew the results and not really add anything valuable to the race.
Side: No
4
points
That's Baloney!
"Financed by Anheuser-Busch, Philip Morris and other multinational corporations, the Commission on Presidential Debates has excluded popular third-party candidates, most of whom are critical of the Big Business agenda. Although he received million in public funds, captured 19 percent of the popular vote in the previous 1992 election, and 76 percent of eligible voters wanted him included, Ross Perot was excluded by the two parties from the 1996 presidential debates. Both Pat Buchanan, who collected over million in federal matching funds, and Ralph Nader, who attracted the largest paid audiences during his campaign appearances, were excluded from the 2000 presidential debates, although in a national poll, 64 percent of eligible voters wanted them included." There is no "law" it's just big business pulling the strings. This is exactly the kind of misinformation that Nader wants to squash!
Supporting Evidence:
Commission on Presidential Debates Settles Dispute, Apologizes to Ralph Nader for Removing Him From UMASS Campus During First Presidential Debate.
(www.gp.org)
Side: Yes
I agree, he's not adding any value to the election. He does have some good points and should have his opportunity to voice his opinion, but the debates aren't the right place. Maybe he could get on CreateDebate and use that as a platform to spread his message? Hey, CreateDebate team, try to get Nader to start posting here. That would be awesome!
Side: No
Nader is smart and has done a lot for consumers over the years but he should stay out of the debates. He doesn't have a chance of winning and will only cloud the debate between the two candidates who actually have a shot at winning. He is doing America a disservice by running.
Side: No
|
