As I said, there are a handful of people elected on third party tickets. Enough to fill up a respectable wikipedia list page, I’m sure. Now compare that to the number of people elected as an R or D. You couldn’t have a wikipedia page listing people elected as a Democrat or a Republican, it would be hundreds of thousands of people.
Nobody’s stopping these 3rd party candidates from holding a debate. They just don’t get to force the 2 major parties to debate them.
Let’s see, what would be the libertarian thing to do here…? Force private organizations to do something under threat of government punishment?
How is the public being defrauded?
It’s only been a regular thing since Ford vs Carter. There were no televised general election debates in 1964, 1968, or 1972.
I agree, as log as they qualify.Gary Johnson and Bill Weld should be able to get sufficient support to make on stage. I would love to see him debate Clinton aND Trump. If polls shows them with 10% or more support, then be allowed.
Yeah, I forgot that.
The debates are a campaigning tool. If Trump or Clinton don’t think they would benefit by showing up to a given proposed debate, they won’t show up. So now what?
Trump in particular isn’t going to be bound by the social expectation that you have to show up for the debate because that’s what presidential candidates do. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if Trump backs out of any debates with Clinton. On the one hand he loves being on TV and thinks he’s great at debates since he made fools out of the scrubs in the Republican debates. On the other hand, he’s a coward who doesn’t want to look like an idiot and at some level he has to know that the techniques he used in the crowded Republican debates won’t work one on one vs Clinton.
Wow. Look, I hate the Libertarian Party, but this year they have a more credible and experienced presidential nominee than the GOP does. If we’re restricting to “credible” candidates, it won’t be much of a “debate.”