Greg Orman, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Kansas last year who came fairly close to winning, has this op-ed in the Concord Monitor. It advocates more inclusive presidential general election debates.
Greg Orman, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Kansas last year who came fairly close to winning, has this op-ed in the Concord Monitor. It advocates more inclusive presidential general election debates.
This is an issue that’s irrelevant to those who understand the difference between conflict and teamwork in politics. A lot of time and energy has been and can be wasted into the future over such a concept because there can never be a correct solution under plurality elections. To build on presidential and other debates with pluralism is like building on an ice lake.
Check out the team of 15 POTUS candidates who are already conducting fruitful conversations with regards to 2016.
The 9th USA Parliament has been doing this for 20 consecutive years and it works fine:
http://www.usparliament.org
To clarify, the team of 15 POTUS candidates who are already conducting fruitful conversations with regards to 2016, is using pure proportional representation (PR) and we’re “Building united inter-party coalitions to get things done collaboratively, not unilaterally.”.
POTUS=President of the United States
See the team of 15 POTUS candidates on the following web page. We’re able to work in unity as an elected team and we welcome newcomers too:
http://www.usparliament.org/pdc.php
At least the Libertarian Party for one debate.
I suspect if the nominees are clinton and bush, that there may be sufficient support in polling to include a third party candidate, likely Johnson unless someone with better name id throws his or her hat into the ring as an independent or 3rd party candidate.