# Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein be included in first POTUS debate on 9/26? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 29, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409 "2016-08-29T16:29:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/61 "2016-08-31T01:04:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Jill Stein is a joke/vanity candidate with exactly zero chance of winning. > > Gary Johnson is a joke/vanity candidate with exactly zero chance of winning. > > Why should the rules be changed to allow either of them on stage? Donald Trump is a joke/vanity candidate with exactly zero chance of winning. He just happens to be representing a party traditionally considered “major.” ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/62 "2016-08-31T01:09:49Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > (And I will add, if William Weld were the Lib nominee for POTUS rather than VP I would be afraid he would cause more damage to HRC in head to head debate. Johnson is too much of a pothead.) _William_ Weld? I thought the VP nominee was _Tuesday_ Weld! It makes a little more sense now. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/63 "2016-08-31T01:25:10Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Yes they should be included. I get that the rule says 15%, but that also strikes me as fairly arbitrary at best… \ > > So my thought is that the rules should be reconsidered. Yeah, you don’t want to let ridiculous candidates in. \ And 15% still strikes me as a little high, I’d rather see at 10% or maybe even a little lower. … You say you want them both in; just pointing out that while this is a perfectly fine argument for Johnson, it isn’t an argument for Stein, who is nowhere near 10% and in fact has a level of support that makes it hard to distinguish her from a “ridiculous” candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/64 "2016-08-31T01:30:04Z")
I’m not so sure that a 3rd party candidate couldnt catch a wave from a debate. Years ago in Minnesota they decided to let reform party candidate Jesse Ventura and his honest, open candor really shut down the other 2 and he went on to win the governorship. Granted that didnt turn out well but it shows the possibility of what could happen. Look, both dems and reps LIKE their monopoly. They dont want to be like Europe with their coalition governments made up of groups that can easily turn on each other. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/65 "2016-08-31T02:43:39Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You could flip that around: isn’t 10% a significant part of the population? Imagine if all black Americans, and only them, abandoned the Dems for a BLM style independent. That independent would fail to make the grade. … To be nitpicky, that’s incorrect. Blacks represent [12%](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/2016-electorate-will-be-the-most-diverse-in-u-s-history/) of eligible voters, not under 10%. And indeed a candidate that appealed to Black voters and only Black voters would not be a serious candidate for the general election. 12% is not enough to have a realistic chance of winning the general. If I was going to write a set of rules for a _future cycle’s_ debates I think I’d be willing to take a low bar for the popular polling numbers (maybe 8 or even 5%) but also require having gotten on the ballot and/or otherwise demonstrating actual organization and support, in some minimum number of states (plus D.C.). Not all of them, that is too high of a bar, but a solid majority of them anyway. I do like the initial op suggestion that invitation to a second debate would require having hit a higher polling threshold as well. In that format a Johnson would likely qualify in the future. I do like the initial OP’s suggestion that after invitation to a second and/or third debate would require a higher bar, perhaps the 15% metric. Broad but not particularly organization and very modest financial resources therefore earn the opportunity to have a swing at bat to appeal to the general populus on the big soapbox but if they fail to connect with enough voters to be a more serious contender after that then the voters get to use the debates as the means to find out more about the ones that actually have a reasonable chance of winning. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/66 "2016-08-31T02:57:44Z")
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant if every Black voter in the country was polling as a BLM independent supporter, that candidate would still not qualify under the current rules. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/67 "2016-08-31T03:39:46Z")
And to be more clear: I was focused on whether such a candidate should have a place in a national leadership debate. Not whether he is likely to win the presidency. I don’t think that’s the same question, imho. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/68 "2016-08-31T03:52:51Z")
Which gets to the question of course of what the general presidential debate is for. I appreciate your perspective but differ from it. The general election debate stage IMHO should not be the place for a gadfly representing a small fraction’s POV to gain a soapbox in an attempt to have impact on the discussion between those who actually might lead but is a place for voters find out more about the actual potential leaders of the country. “Likely” is not required, but “a realistic long shot possibility of” should be. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/69 "2016-08-31T05:27:59Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > a soapbox in an attempt to have impact on the discussion between those who actually might lead Isn’t that what the debate’s questioners are taking? Trying to test and draw out the contenders, to make them face issues and angles they may not have chosen in their own campaign activities? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/70 "2016-08-31T05:51:49Z")
The lock that the Democratic and Republican parties collectively hold on discussions such as debates and town hall style meetings is appalling, going to the ridiculous. The non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is [hosting a town hall style discussion for the candidates](http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/gary-johnson-not-invited-to-appear-iava) on September 7 with the subject matter limited to military issues faced by a Commander-in-Chief. > [@](#): > > A recent unscientific poll of over 3,000 active military members conducted by Doctrine Man found Johnson trouncing the two “serious” candidates, with Johnson polling at 38.7 percent, Trump coming in at 30.9 percent, with Clinton bringing up the rear with 14.1 percent, according to The Hill. > > It also appears that the military, much like the rest of the American voting populace, is completely turned off by both major party candidates. A recent Military Times poll of 2,000 active service-people found 61 percent stating they were “dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied” with the idea of Trump as president. For Clinton, the level of dissatisfaction jumps to 82 percent. That same poll indicated that 13 percent of those polled intended to vote for Johnson in November. Johnson leading in an admittedly unscientific poll of active military service-members, and with both major party candidates having 60+ % unfavorables among this group but still Johnson is not invited. Reminds me of the Douglas Adams penned lizard vignette from SLATFATF. > [@](#): > > On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." > “Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.” > “I did,” said Ford. “It is.” > “So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t people get rid of the lizards?” > “It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.” > “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?” > “Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.” > “But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?” > “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Gotta pick your lizard. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/71 "2016-08-31T09:00:55Z")
Would anyone televise or stream a debate between Johnson and Stein? Or, if Trump were to decide to not debate Clinton, would Johnson step in? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/72 "2016-08-31T11:54:16Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Isn’t that what the debate’s questioners are taking? Trying to test and draw out the contenders, to make them face issues and angles they may not have chosen in their own campaign activities? I am quite sure that you understand the difference in the criteria for being invited as a moderator and as a candidate and the in the role that a moderator plays to the stage in comparison to a candidate on the stage. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/73 "2016-08-31T12:05:30Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The lock that the Democratic and Republican parties collectively hold on discussions such as debates and town hall style meetings is appalling, going to the ridiculous. > > The non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is [hosting a town hall style discussion for the candidates](http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/gary-johnson-not-invited-to-appear-iava) on September 7 with the subject matter limited to military issues faced by a Commander-in-Chief. > > Johnson leading in an admittedly unscientific poll of active military service-members, and with both major party candidates having 60+ % unfavorables among this group but still Johnson is not invited. > > Reminds me of the Douglas Adams penned lizard vignette from SLATFATF. > Gotta pick your lizard. Cute quote from Adams, but the words “admittedly unscientific” need to be bolded, underlined, and italicized–a poll that is “admittedly unscientific” is _ **meaningless** _. Even if it were a meaningful figure, and Americans in the military really were inclined to support Johnson in a big way, I’m not sure it matters. There just aren’t that many active military personnel. Forty percent of active military, assuming they all voted, is something like 500,000 votes. Not exactly a tsunami of support. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/74 "2016-08-31T12:49:27Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > Cute quote from Adams, but the words “admittedly unscientific” need to be bolded, underlined, and italicized–a poll that is “admittedly unscientific” is _ **meaningless** _. > > Even if it were a meaningful figure, and Americans in the military really were inclined to support Johnson in a big way, I’m not sure it matters. There just aren’t that many active military personnel. Forty percent of active military, assuming they all voted, is something like 500,000 votes. Not exactly a tsunami of support. Our military are not the Praetorian Guard. Of course they have the right to vote–this must be made easy for those “away from home.” But I don’t see that they should have more influence than the rest of the citizenry. Minor parties need to build from the ground up, not show up every four years & complain. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/75 "2016-08-31T19:23:02Z")
Just to put the 15% cutoff into a little perspective, In 1968 George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/76 "2016-08-31T19:33:04Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I am quite sure that you understand the difference in the criteria for being invited as a moderator and as a candidate and the in the role that a moderator plays to the stage in comparison to a candidate on the stage. Of course. But I was thinking about the practical function, not the criteria. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/77 "2016-08-31T19:40:04Z")
Is it so unimaginable that we might be better served by a process in which the perspectives to challenge the leading candidates originate on the stage? ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/78 "2016-08-31T19:46:20Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Just to put the 15% cutoff into a little perspective, In 1968 George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote. Yeah, but that was quite a bit different. Wallace got over 60% in Alabama and Mississippi, over 40% in Louisiana and Georgia, and 38% in Arkansas (the last three were more than enough in a 3 person race), but very low amounts in the rest of the country (a bit more in other southern-ish states to 1% in Maine). If you had a third party who was truly just a regional candidate then maybe it would have an impact. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/79 "2016-08-31T20:08:37Z")
I think that theoretically Johnson belongs in the debate, because the LP is serious enough to get him on the ballot in every state, none of the other candidates manage anything like it. I don’t think the major party candidates are required to debate him, though, and the 15% threshold is not unreasonable on it’s face. I think Johnson being in the debate would actually hurt his numbers unless the major candidates, because libertarianism has a lot of problems working in the real world or getting broad appeal. I mostly posted, though, to point out the irony of Libertarians complaining that it’s wrong they’re not included in the debate, when Libertarians favor removing anti-discrimination restrictions on the ‘right to free association’ in the workplace and market which would allow people to refuse to hire women or put up ‘no blacks allowed’ signs. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409/80 "2016-08-31T20:31:34Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Is it so unimaginable that we might be better served by a process in which the perspectives to challenge the leading candidates originate on the stage? We might be, but so what? The debate terms are set by the campaign teams. Yeah, they choose to do so via a second-hand “commission” that they control. So what? The point is, unless the debates are favorable to the major party candidates they won’t show up. Just the act of appearing onstage along with Clinton and Trump would be a major boost for Stein or Johnson. And that’s why they aren’t going to be allowed to appear. It’s all upside for the crank candidates and all downside for the major candidates. And if in the future there is some organization that sets up a debate that allows crank candidates to appear onstage, then the major candidates are simply not going to appear at that debate. They’ll either hold their own debate or there won’t be a debate that year. A candidate might look like a coward for ducking out on the debate against their major party rival, but that doesn’t apply to not showing up for a circus of crank candidates. Yeah, Perot got himself on stage. And the major parties are never going to allow that to happen again, and will craft the “rules” of the “debate commission” such that it won’t happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-be-included-in-first-potus-debate-on-9-26/764409.md?page=5)