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

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

[Ebsy]

No, and neither Trump nor Clinton should agree to do any debate with either.

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's hard to say. The problem is not with the commission standards (although I'd like the polling threshold to be lowered), but with the polling companies themselves who in past years have refused to include the third party candidates. I know PPP is good about including them, but most of the rest of the media has taken to treating them like horsesh**t since they do polling for liberal groups and aren't a live interview company. Hopefully Monmouth remains open to including them and that convinces other polling companies to do the same.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of course they should if they're on enough states to where they could actually win.

At this point, all of the above have zero GE votes. 

[Blue3]

Not unless they are getting over 10% in multiple polls of good standing, or are projected to win at least 5 states in multiple polls of good standing.

[Suburbia]

It might be good for democracy. I would love to see Stein vs. Clinton in a town hall debate.

[Higgs]

Nope

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Yes! It would finally help to put an end to the Republocrats and actually give credible third party candidates a fair chance, they only poll so low because VERY few people EVER hear about them.

[Asian Nazi]

Hell 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.

[The Other Castro]

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.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

If they meet the requirements, yes. I will say that the requirements should be at least a bit lower. Maybe 10% or so.

[Eraserhead]

Yes. Of course they won't be though.

[Ljube]

Hell 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.

[ProudModerate2]

Only if they meet the requirements.
Period.

[IceSpear]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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%.

Did O'Malley outperform Clinton or Sanders in any debate? No. That's why his numbers stayed where they were.

[IceSpear]

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%.

Did O'Malley outperform Clinton or Sanders in any debate? No. That's why his numbers stayed where they were.

I'm sure antivaxxer conspiracy theorist Jill Stein and goofy Gary Johnson would dominate the debates if only given the opportunity. lol

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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%.

Did O'Malley outperform Clinton or Sanders in any debate? No. That's why his numbers stayed where they were.

I'm sure antivaxxer conspiracy theorist Jill Stein and goofy Gary Johnson would dominate the debates if only given the opportunity. lol

"Goofy" applies to someone else:

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Any candidate with enough ballot access to achieve 270 electoral votes should be invited, in my opinion. It allows for alternative candidates such as the Libertarians or Greens to have their voices heard without the nuisance of perennial candidates such as the Workers World or America's Party candidates cramming themselves onto the stage alongside the viable candidates.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Just an FYI: the goal for minor parties right now is not to win, but to get 5% of the popular vote.  A tall order, certainly, but not impossible.  If third parties want to make inroads and grow their support for future races, this is probably the best time to do it.

I say yes to both.

[Lyin' Steve]

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?

[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.