I was just curious why the presidential debates are limited to the top two contenders (Republican and Democrate)? Should not ALL persons running for the office be allowed to debate? Unless the FREE News Media AND exposure is in control?
2006-09-10 07:02:24 · 5 answers · asked by Snaglefritz 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It interesting when I see people cut down a president. As we see the top contenders are there because of money, SUPPORTERS, would the supporters not have a say in what he do after he elected? Easy to weed out the chaf when there only two that need to comform to the wishes of BIG business? Maybe I am wrong. That why I ask. Seems most people never know of Others running for the position, like they obscured by the REAL ones in control! President like the Queen of England, just an icon?
2006-09-10 07:19:11 · update #1
I agree. When Ross Perot ran in 1992 and was allowed to participate in the debates his voting turnout went way up. I think if you belong to a legitimate third party you should be allowed in the debates, even though they have no real shot at winning.
2006-09-10 07:06:24 · answer #1 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're right, democracy is dead.
Debates are more like sporting events where obsessive fans cheer their favorite teams.
The presidents power is only temporary and is derived from the businesses and political organizations that support them.
Other voices are not able to be heard through the din of the noisy campaigns dominated by the special interests.
2006-09-10 09:47:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree in theory.
But it's hard to have a debate with 1000 people, or 100, or even 25.
They aren't always limited to the top 2, but they are severely limited.
2006-09-10 11:16:07 · answer #3 · answered by A B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No..
Not enough time for anyone not having any chance of winning..
2006-09-10 07:07:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there a total waste of time
2006-09-10 07:05:33 · answer #5 · answered by Suzy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋