Would these debates be more informative if we had candidates from different parties answering these questions?
So Hillary and Rudy and Edwards and Romney could answer the same question, the the same stage?
Also, during the general election, there are only two candidates, MAYBE three. If there are political parties with candidates on the ballot in all 50 states, or at least enough to hypothetically win the Electoral College, why are they denied the right to speak their vision for America in front of a national audience? Why only two or three candidates?
2007-11-15 02:26:40 · 3 answers · asked by Supercell 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because we have an antiquated system of government that allows Iowa and New Hampshire for what ever reasons to determine who is going on to other states, and because the news media does not cover all the candidates and seems to be obsessed with the front runners.
I think the debates would be more informative if they made the candidates answer the question instead of tap dance around the issue.
2007-11-15 02:34:57 · answer #1 · answered by cheap advice 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Money is a big issue in politics in todays world... it's sad really.
But yes, I would like to see all serious candidates up on stage.... our choices are so very limited in present times... not always bad choices... but still limited ones.
2007-11-15 02:33:59 · answer #2 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Those are the only ones that can afford it
2007-11-15 02:30:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋