Do you think Johnson will make the debate stage?

[SillyAmerican]

I hope so.

If he doesn't, it'll be because they kept him out on technicalities.

These. (And yes, the way I see it, the two major political parties have way too much control over who gets to attend the debates...).

[SillyAmerican]

(And yes, the way I see it, the two major political parties have way too much control over who gets to attend the debates...).

I mean, it's up to each individual candidate to decide if he or she wants to attend a debate, no?  So I'm not sure what kind of alternative you would propose.  They're not going to do debates with third party candidates unless they think it's in their interest.  How would you force them to show up at debates with more candidates?

As I've said elsewhere, I think any candidate who can possibly garner the number of EVs needed to be elected president should be invited to be a part of at least one nationally sponsored debate. If a candidate decides not to participate in that debate, that's their prerogative. If the parties want to offer additional debates with a more limited set of attendees, that's their prerogative. But to say that a candidate can't offer views in a debate until they reach some arbitrary polling level set by the two dominant parties? That's simply imposing a self-serving catch-22. And I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a ticket containing former two-term governors in both the president and vp slots is somehow less qualified to debate than a ticket headed by either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

[SillyAmerican]

(And yes, the way I see it, the two major political parties have way too much control over who gets to attend the debates...).

I mean, it's up to each individual candidate to decide if he or she wants to attend a debate, no?  So I'm not sure what kind of alternative you would propose.  They're not going to do debates with third party candidates unless they think it's in their interest.  How would you force them to show up at debates with more candidates?

As I've said elsewhere, I think any candidate who can possibly garner the number of EVs needed to be elected president should be invited to be a part of at least one nationally sponsored debate.

What is a "nationally sponsored debate"?  One that gets broadcast on the TV networks?  There are already various outfits that invite all the candidates, including third party candidates, to participate in debates.  Free & Equal is one that invites all the candidates with ballot access in a sufficient number of states.  If the major party candidates would actually show up for those debates, I'm sure the TV networks would be happy to broadcast them.  But the major party candidates *won't* show up at those debates, and I'm not sure how you're going to convince them to do so.

You're right, that's the problem. I think we need one publicly funded, nationally broadcast debate to which all candidates with sufficient ballot access are automatically included. And that broadcast takes place, no matter if there's one candidate on the stage or a dozen; have it so that each eligible candidate has a place, whether they're in attendance or not. If the major party candidates decide not to show up, so be it; at least there would be one nationally broadcast debate at which all candidates were presented on an equal footing. We always hear how it would be just too difficult to accommodate more than two people at such a debate, but it was interesting to see how the GOP debates managed to accomplish pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. So I guess the carrot I'm proposing is one instance of voter financed air time every four years.

[SillyAmerican]

(And yes, the way I see it, the two major political parties have way too much control over who gets to attend the debates...).

I mean, it's up to each individual candidate to decide if he or she wants to attend a debate, no?  So I'm not sure what kind of alternative you would propose.  They're not going to do debates with third party candidates unless they think it's in their interest.  How would you force them to show up at debates with more candidates?

As I've said elsewhere, I think any candidate who can possibly garner the number of EVs needed to be elected president should be invited to be a part of at least one nationally sponsored debate.

What is a "nationally sponsored debate"?  One that gets broadcast on the TV networks?  There are already various outfits that invite all the candidates, including third party candidates, to participate in debates.  Free & Equal is one that invites all the candidates with ballot access in a sufficient number of states.  If the major party candidates would actually show up for those debates, I'm sure the TV networks would be happy to broadcast them.  But the major party candidates *won't* show up at those debates, and I'm not sure how you're going to convince them to do so.

You're right, that's the problem. I think we need one publicly funded, nationally broadcast debate to which all candidates with sufficient ballot access are automatically included. And that broadcast takes place, no matter if there's one candidate on the stage or a dozen; have it so that each eligible candidate has a place, whether they're in attendance or not.

Problem is, you can't force a TV network to broadcast an event that they're not interested in broadcasting.  And they wouldn't be interested in broadcasting a debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, because not enough of the public cares about them.  You'd need the major party candidates to show up in order for the networks to bother broadcasting such a thing, and there's no way to force them to show up.

Not true. If you are willing to pay for air time, a TV network would be happy to broadcast a picture of a potted plant for two hours. Their interest in what you're broadcasting ends where the almighty dollar begins.