I despise the idea of allowing third parties into the presidential debates unless they’ve achieved a decent standing in the polls as Perot did in 1992. Like it or not, this is a 2 party country and I want to hear what both the Democrat and the Republican have to say. I don’t need to hear from some 3rd party fringe gadfly. The 3rd parties usually have a debate among themselves which gets shuttled off to C-Span 2 in the middle of a Saturday night.
Why not? What’s wrong with letting such people, in effect, challenge the major-party candidates on difficult points? We have moderators, who don’t particularly represent anybody, trying to do that, but I bet third-party candidates could sometimes spark more revealing moments.
As noted above, there are 41 Presidential candidates in this race. We can’t have a 41 way debate. How would you determine who is a serious enough candidate to be on the stage? If I run on the Ultravires Party Ticket, do I get on the stage? Do I get equal time with Trump and Clinton?
Do you want the US government to run the debates? Then they *would *have to include every single person who’s filed for the position.
Lots of ways it could be drawn. Offhand, I’d say the top five parties or candidates by state ballot qualification should be a reasonable standard to start with.
Restricting it to 10 or more state ballots would yield only three more people at the debate. Libertarian, Green and Constitution are the only ones I know that would meet that criteria. Only the Libertarian has more than half the states.
Polling becomes a circular argument.
The public has ample opportunity to hear from other candidates. It’s just generally not interested in what they have to say.
Same thing about “fixing” the voting system. The real problem you have with the voting system is people aren’t voting for the person you want. That’s not a problem; that’s how democracy works.
There are people who have managed to become serious presidential candidates from outside the two-party system: Ross Perot, John Anderson, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace. But candidates shouldn’t be entitled to a place at the debates just because they exist; they have to attract a real following first.
If Bernie Sanders decides to run for the Presidency as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination, I’d say he’s earned a place at the debates. But people like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein haven’t earned a spot and shouldn’t feel entitled to one.
I’d hardly call that reasonable. The Democrats and the Republicans are going to get virtually all the votes in the upcoming election. On what objective basis should the Libertarians be placed alongside those parties rather than alongside parties like the Nutrition Party and the Prohibition Party?
I’m not clear exactly what you’re saying here. But if it is that FPTP plurality voting, as in (virtually all of) the US is “how democracy works”–that is incorrect. Of the hundred-twenty-odd countries in the world which are billed as (more or less) democratic republics, only about one-third use such a system.
The public does not have ample opportunity to hear how the major candidates answer them.
My argument is not that these particular parties have necessarily “earned” inclusion. It is that the vigor of the process itself, and the strength of the choice between the major candidates would be improved by having a few more perspectives involved. Have somebody up there, beholden to neither major party, and no media corporation, make a point or ask a question that we can see the Democrat and the Republican respond to.
The ballot-access standard, as I said, is just one possibility for picking those people. Five is a good number to have on stage.
Coincidentally, the Gubernatorial elections I mentioned in my OP usually have only four or five candidates. In Maine, we run primaries for the democratic and republican candidates for governor. We also usually see a Green and a couple of independents.
Thankfully Gary Johnson will be involved in the up-and-coming Presidential debates. Such exposure will draw attention to the libertarian message, something most Americans can relate to.
nm
I believe the CPD gets to pick which polls to look at, and Johnson would have to hit 15%+ on all of those to be included. That is within reach–he’s already over 10% in a couple major polls–but it’s not at all sure that he “will” be involved.
It is a political organization, not a for-profit business. The relevant fraud is not on investors but on the public.
No, it is something most Americans can understand, that is all.
You guys are aware that candidates have no obligation to show up for debates they don’t want to do, right?
You can hold an event where 41 candidates for president show up and bloviate, but there’s no way to compel the Republican and Democratic nominees to show up for that event.
In real life, both major party candidates have to agree to a time, place, and format for the debates. If they don’t like the proposed debates they don’t have to show up. It turns out that ever since Kennedy vs Nixon we’ve had televised presidential debates, but this is because in all races since then both major party candidates have decided it would be in their best interests to show up.
The major party candidates have an interest in debating each other, because they both think it will help them. They have no interest in sharing a stage with the Social Worker’s Party candidate. Or the Libertarian Party candidate.
If the Libertarians had a couple of governorships, a couple of senators, a handful of representatives in congress, or controlled a couple of state houses, then the Libertarian Party would be important enough that candidates would want to address them. But they don’t, so they aren’t.
The Reform Party actually elected a few people to office besides Ross Perot, before they imploded. Perot was polling in the double digits. And he was invited onto the podium during the debates. But that was because Bush and Clinton agreed to it. They didn’t have to agree. And if two people want to have a debate and not invite anyone else, it’s a free country. You don’t have to vote for them if you don’t like it.
In this day of the internet, these candidates can get their message out there. If I don’t like Trump or Clinton, I am sure I could go on YouTube and watch any number of speeches by Gary Johnson or any of the other candidates.
It’s a chicken and egg thing. Get some clout and actual positions of responsibility, and your party will be in the debates. Getting in the debates improves your chances of getting clout and winning seats. Right now, there is no third party candidate with enough of a following to warrant a podium. Ross Perot got his chance because he polled well enough. Others may if they do as well as Perot.
The threshold for participation has to be based on the size of the following. Had Republicans had more restrictive thresholds, they wouldn’t be stuck with a clown at the top of the ticket.
The real reason third parties never prosper is that people who seriously want to hold real power won’t bother with third parties. Third parties are for losers, and so the only people who run on third party tickets are losers. It doesn’t matter if the Libertarian party platform would suit you better than the Republicans, if you want to actually get elected you run as a Republican. There’s no litmus test where they kick out people with libertarian leanings form the party. If you get elected with an R after your name, then you’re a Republican.
So anyone serious runs as either a Republican or Democrat. Sure, you’ve got your Walley Hickels and Jesse Venturas and Bernie Sanders. So what? Notice Bernie is running as a Democrat this time. Running on a third party ticket is deliberately sabotaging yourself, and if you were serious about wanting to win you wouldn’t sabotage yourself. You’d run on a major party ticket, and after you won you’d work on remaking the party. The major parties are just collections of voters and elected officials and backroom fixers, they’ll work with anyone who can get elected. But if you can’t get elected, they’re not interested in you.
The fact is most of these third parties are really just one guy with a post office box and an email list, who literally couldn’t get elected dog-catcher. So why should Trump or Clinton agree to appear on stage with them? What’s in it for Trump and Clinton?
Yeah, just ask Angus King what happened when he ran for Governor, twice as an independent. Or maybe ask him how well he did when he ran for the Senate.
He won all three elections.