Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein be invited to the debates?

[RaphaelDLG]

Yes, if they poll reasonably well, and it's an undemocratic rigged outrage that they have been shut out.

Are Stein and Johnson a little dingbatty standing next to a normal person like Hillary Clinton?  Of course.  Would i advise battleground state voters to pick them over clinton?  No.  But their unique, important political perspectives desperately need to be aired.

15% is an outrageously high standard.  Maybe something like 1%, which I had in mind, is too low, but maybe it would be sufficient combined with the excellent ballot access rule chairman Sanchez mentioned above.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Many people are very unhappy with both major party nominees, so it would be nice if we moved away from the two party duopoly. There are countries with FPTP that still have more than 2 significant parties, such as Canada and the UK.

That doesn't mean that their systems are better. We should probably move to an Alternative Vote format before expanding the party system.

Their systems aren't better, they still have FPTP. Other countries have better systems.

That's where you're wrong - we both have fptp but their executive is elected by their legislature whereas ours is not, an important, relevant difference.

They can have multiple parties but they really only have two major parties within each burough - lab vs con, con vs lib dem, lib dem vs lab, lab vs snp, etc depending on the borough.

  We could have that at our Congressional level but not at our presidential level.  And Castro's right, we desperately need IRV or something like it so 3rd parties can become relevant.

For comparing Parliament and Congress, they are basically the same system. Of course the Prime Minister is elected differently than the Congress.

[RaphaelDLG]

Many people are very unhappy with both major party nominees, so it would be nice if we moved away from the two party duopoly. There are countries with FPTP that still have more than 2 significant parties, such as Canada and the UK.

That doesn't mean that their systems are better. We should probably move to an Alternative Vote format before expanding the party system.

Their systems aren't better, they still have FPTP. Other countries have better systems.

That's where you're wrong - we both have fptp but their executive is elected by their legislature whereas ours is not, an important, relevant difference.

They can have multiple parties but they really only have two major parties within each burough - lab vs con, con vs lib dem, lib dem vs lab, lab vs snp, etc depending on the borough.

  We could have that at our Congressional level but not at our presidential level.  And Castro's right, we desperately need IRV or something like it so 3rd parties can become relevant.

For comparing Parliament and Congress, they are basically the same system. Of course the Prime Minister is elected differently than the Congress.

No, not even close, reread my post closer to understand why they are different enough that it affects what you're taking about.

 Can you have a coalition executive government in a presidential system like the US like you can in a parliamentary system?  (Hint: the answer is no)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Many people are very unhappy with both major party nominees, so it would be nice if we moved away from the two party duopoly. There are countries with FPTP that still have more than 2 significant parties, such as Canada and the UK.

That doesn't mean that their systems are better. We should probably move to an Alternative Vote format before expanding the party system.

Their systems aren't better, they still have FPTP. Other countries have better systems.

That's where you're wrong - we both have fptp but their executive is elected by their legislature whereas ours is not, an important, relevant difference.

They can have multiple parties but they really only have two major parties within each burough - lab vs con, con vs lib dem, lib dem vs lab, lab vs snp, etc depending on the borough.

  We could have that at our Congressional level but not at our presidential level.  And Castro's right, we desperately need IRV or something like it so 3rd parties can become relevant.

For comparing Parliament and Congress, they are basically the same system. Of course the Prime Minister is elected differently than the Congress.

No, not even close, reread my post closer to understand why they are different enough that it affects what you're taking about.

 Can you have a coalition executive government in a presidential system like the US like you can in a parliamentary system?  (Hint: the answer is no)

Again, I wasn't talking about the President and Prime Minister, I was talking about Parliament and Congress. A coalition government in Congress would be possible.

[RaphaelDLG]

Many people are very unhappy with both major party nominees, so it would be nice if we moved away from the two party duopoly. There are countries with FPTP that still have more than 2 significant parties, such as Canada and the UK.

That doesn't mean that their systems are better. We should probably move to an Alternative Vote format before expanding the party system.

Their systems aren't better, they still have FPTP. Other countries have better systems.

That's where you're wrong - we both have fptp but their executive is elected by their legislature whereas ours is not, an important, relevant difference.

They can have multiple parties but they really only have two major parties within each burough - lab vs con, con vs lib dem, lib dem vs lab, lab vs snp, etc depending on the borough.

  We could have that at our Congressional level but not at our presidential level.  And Castro's right, we desperately need IRV or something like it so 3rd parties can become relevant.

For comparing Parliament and Congress, they are basically the same system. Of course the Prime Minister is elected differently than the Congress.

No, not even close, reread my post closer to understand why they are different enough that it affects what you're taking about.

 Can you have a coalition executive government in a presidential system like the US like you can in a parliamentary system?  (Hint: the answer is no)

Again, I wasn't talking about the President and Prime Minister, I was talking about Parliament and Congress. A coalition government in Congress would be possible.

How it could start would be the green party running strongly in every deep blue district and winning a significant # of seats so it could wield some influence. It would risk not getting committee assignments and having any say within the house of Representatives until it got large enough to prevent the Democrats from having a majority.

 It would kind of be analogous to the progressive caucus within the Democratic party but outside of it.

I think the real problem is that there's absolutely no reason for someone to be a green as opposed to a progressive Democrat or even an independent who caucuses with the Democrats and in fact because of the rules within the houses , fundraising structures and realities, and election laws it in fact really pays to at least nominally be associated with the Democratic party.

[ElectionsGuy]

Are all the people voting yes in this thread the kind of people who think Rocky de la Fuente and Keith Judd should have been on stage with Bernie and Hillary at the New York debate?  Or do they not understand just how minor Jill Stein is?

Keith Judd has only been on the ballot in like 6 states. La Fuente, however, does have ballot access in enough states to win the nomination, so yeah on principle he should've been invited. For debates before filing deadlines, I would say anybody who has ballot access in enough states to possibly get a majority of delegates at that time should be invited.

It seems like they talk about this constantly.  Especially the libertarians.  They're not invited to the debates because the mainstream media is silencing their cause or whatever.  Take the wool of your eyes people!  The media is #DestroyingDemocracy by not letting these candidates with <1% support participate in these very serious events.

Personally I think if they're able to get at least 10-15% support, like Anderson or Perot, they should be invited, but not if they're just in the low single digits and clearly are just also-rans and only getting attention because they're not Clinton/Trump and not for their ideas, they shouldn't be.

Face palm. The whole reason they have 1% support is because the media ignores them and they're rarely included in the polls.

Yes, both. I think if the party or ticket has ballot access in enough states to get 270 electoral votes, you should be invited to the debates.

Martin O'Malley was polling at 1% and mostly ignored by the media. After taking part in several highly watched debates, he still polled at 1%.

Same for Pataki, Graham, etc.

It's totally within the realm of possibilities that they could remain far-fetched candidates that aren't popular, but are you seriously saying that we shouldn't even give them a shot because it hasn't happened with other candidates in a primary?

O'Malley did rise a few points after some debates, but Pataki/Graham were always at the 'kids table', a demoted debate which far less people watched, so that's worth noting.

[Mehmentum]

Maybe just for the first debate.  Then for the 2nd and third debate have the 15% threshold.

[This account no longer in use.]

I feel that the first debate should have a 5% threshold, the second debate a 10% threshold, and the third debate a 15% threshold.

[DS0816]

Yes.

No minimum threshold or any of these other artificial conditions should be required.

The two parties are controlling the debates.

In answer to the thread question…this should not be the case any longer.

[°Leprechaun]

Yes. I feel 100 confident that everyone should vote yes on both because anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to get to 270 (or more) electoral votes should be taken seriously.

The fact that they aren't makes it appear that they can't be elected and therefore can't reach a decent per cent in polls. They should both be on the ballot everywhere.

How many people, on a totally unrelated topic, will vote "none of these candidates" which is on the ballot in Nevada, a state which leans Democratic, but could be a swing state if a lot of people refuse to vote for Clinton (assuming she wins on June 7, which she has a good chance of doing, or so it would appear) or the presumptive GOP guy?

Prediction: the next POTUS will either be a man or a woman.

[Seneca]

No, there should be no debates, Fox and CNN should just work with teams #Clinton and #Trump to produce hour-long features to run in those October debate spots and call it a day.

[President Johnson]

Only if they have poll number above ten percent.

[Maxwell]

Johnson should be invited only because he'll probably poll above 5% and has the decency not to appear in front of the Kremlin to debate. Stein should not be invited because she's a joke.

[PPT Spiral]

Johnson should be invited only because he'll probably poll above 5% and has the decency not to appear in front of the Kremlin to debate.

About that

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Unless you invite all third party candidates with a ballot access enough to theoretically reach 270, it wouldn't be fair, would it?

[Maxwell]

Johnson should be invited only because he'll probably poll above 5% and has the decency not to appear in front of the Kremlin to debate.

About that

Oh, well F him then.

[5280]

Yes, both. I'd like a 4 way debate between Hillary, Trump, Johnson and Stein.

[Figueira]

I can't think of any good non-partisan reasons to exclude them.

[IceSpear]

Are all the people voting yes in this thread the kind of people who think Rocky de la Fuente and Keith Judd should have been on stage with Bernie and Hillary at the New York debate?  Or do they not understand just how minor Jill Stein is?

Keith Judd has only been on the ballot in like 6 states. La Fuente, however, does have ballot access in enough states to win the nomination, so yeah on principle he should've been invited. For debates before filing deadlines, I would say anybody who has ballot access in enough states to possibly get a majority of delegates at that time should be invited.

It seems like they talk about this constantly.  Especially the libertarians.  They're not invited to the debates because the mainstream media is silencing their cause or whatever.  Take the wool of your eyes people!  The media is #DestroyingDemocracy by not letting these candidates with <1% support participate in these very serious events.

Personally I think if they're able to get at least 10-15% support, like Anderson or Perot, they should be invited, but not if they're just in the low single digits and clearly are just also-rans and only getting attention because they're not Clinton/Trump and not for their ideas, they shouldn't be.

Face palm. The whole reason they have 1% support is because the media ignores them and they're rarely included in the polls.

Yes, both. I think if the party or ticket has ballot access in enough states to get 270 electoral votes, you should be invited to the debates.

Martin O'Malley was polling at 1% and mostly ignored by the media. After taking part in several highly watched debates, he still polled at 1%.

Same for Pataki, Graham, etc.

It's totally within the realm of possibilities that they could remain far-fetched candidates that aren't popular, but are you seriously saying that we shouldn't even give them a shot because it hasn't happened with other candidates in a primary?

O'Malley did rise a few points after some debates, but Pataki/Graham were always at the 'kids table', a demoted debate which far less people watched, so that's worth noting.

My point is that you can't solely blame lack of exposure. It's quite possible voters just aren't buying what they're selling. I'm sure a large chunk of voters know what libertarianism or the Green movement stands for.

[beaver2.0]

Since they have the ability to win 270 electoral votes, yes, even if I don't support their policies.

If we are making comparisons, Martin O'Malley got .5% of the Iowa Caucus this year while Gary Johnson got .82% in the general last time around.  Johnson out-polls O'Malley, so he (or whoever the Libertarians put up) should be on the debate stage.  I would additionally point out that Gary Johnson is not some fringe candidate.  He was Governor of New Mexico, that surely makes him a respectable figure.

[SteveRogers]

I'd support lowering the threshold to 5%, if only because that's the performance that entitles third parties to public financing and would thus be less arbitrary than 15%.

[VPH]

I think they need to show consistent support levels above 5% to qualify.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Many people are very unhappy with both major party nominees, so it would be nice if we moved away from the two party duopoly. There are countries with FPTP that still have more than 2 significant parties, such as Canada and the UK.

That doesn't mean that their systems are better. We should probably move to an Alternative Vote format before expanding the party system.

Their systems aren't better, they still have FPTP. Other countries have better systems.

That's where you're wrong - we both have fptp but their executive is elected by their legislature whereas ours is not, an important, relevant difference.

They can have multiple parties but they really only have two major parties within each burough - lab vs con, con vs lib dem, lib dem vs lab, lab vs snp, etc depending on the borough.

  We could have that at our Congressional level but not at our presidential level.  And Castro's right, we desperately need IRV or something like it so 3rd parties can become relevant.

For comparing Parliament and Congress, they are basically the same system. Of course the Prime Minister is elected differently than the Congress.

No, not even close, reread my post closer to understand why they are different enough that it affects what you're taking about.

 Can you have a coalition executive government in a presidential system like the US like you can in a parliamentary system?  (Hint: the answer is no)

Literally every country in Latin America, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan ...

[Oak Hills]

I feel that the first debate should have a 5% threshold, the second debate a 10% threshold, and the third debate a 15% threshold.

Something like this would be my preference.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Johnson only, because eventually he'll be the Trump alternative. However, if he doesn't reach a decent threshold, I wouldn't find it absurd that he's excluded. But there's no reason to include Stein... I'd be surprised if she exceeds 4% in a single state.