Arne,

I'd like to get your opinion on something. In the 2000 presidential primaries, John McCain had brought up the topic of soft money numerous times. As a result (directly or indirectly), Al Gore offered George W. a chance to swear off soft money completely, and instead have twice-weekly debates. Would you like to see this?

As a follow up, what would be your criteria, if any, for letting people debate? Would they have to get a certain number of signatures on a petition, or be judged based on their party's previous national election tally, or something else? I agree that it would be nice to see more than just the two main parties involved in the debate, but where do you draw the line? Ralph Nader was the main third party candidate two years ago, and he only got two or three percent. Harry Browne, the Libertarian and Pat Buchanan, the Reform candidate, each got about one percent. The Socialist and Constitutional parties each got less than one percent. Are any of these candidates and parties more or less deserving than any other? And what about independent candidates?

I would like to hear your answer to these, because I don't know how we would approach this question. It would be nice to see more than two people up on stage, but once you open the door to third parties, how do you close the door on the fourth and fifth and sixth?

-Britt