71 percent in poll want RFK Jr., third parties in debate

[Beet]

Seven in 10 voters in a new poll want to see third-party and independent candidates in presidential debates this cycle, as President Biden and former President Trump prepare to go head-to-head.

The latest Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found 79 percent of voters want Biden and Trump to debate, while 71 percent think those debates should include candidates from outside the major parties if they clear a viable threshold — with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. listed as an example of one such candidate.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4675158-71-percent-in-poll-want-rfk-jr-third-parties-in-debate/

[MichaelM24]

My thoughts on this are pretty simple - any candidate that has enough ballot access (both as a candidate on the ballot or as a write-in option) to theoretically win should automatically be given a podium at the debates, regardless of whatever polls say. If a candidate can win, they should be there, period.

Of course, I'd suspect many Republicans and Democrats alike would come together and argue against this idea, but if they want to be anti-democratic, that's their business.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Not many Democrats here actively supporting democracy.

[Progressive Pessimist]

That would just plain be a waste of time.

Take it up with the electoral college.

[Mr. Smith]

The Free and Fair Debates exist, perhaps more could be done to pressure both R's and D's to participate in that, same way Reagan still debated Anderson.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

My thoughts on this are pretty simple - any candidate that has enough ballot access (both as a candidate on the ballot or as a write-in option) to theoretically win should automatically be given a podium at the debates, regardless of whatever polls say. If a candidate can win, they should be there, period.

Of course, I'd suspect many Republicans and Democrats alike would come together and argue against this idea, but if they want to be anti-democratic, that's their business.

The only sane take one can have.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think the American people should get to hear what RFK Jr. has to say and what he believes. I think many might find it enlightening.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

That would just plain be a waste of time.

Take it up with the electoral college.

The electoral college doesn't necessitate a first-past-the-post/plurality winner-take-all allocation of every constituency's electoral votes (which is the actual component of the EC as it exists today which arguably prevents Third Party Candidates from winning). A nationwide popular vote for president under a first-past-the-post winner-take-all system, even with runoffs, (as is done in France, Turkey, and other countries that elect their president by NPV), would be no less disadvantageous to third party candidates, and if anything would strengthen the two-party stranglehold on American presidential elections, considering that the EC permits candidates who have limited regional support to gain a share of the EV by focusing on those states and districts where they do stand a chance (see: 1948 POTUS election, 1968 POTUS election, 2024 Democratic POTUS Primary in American Samoa, etc.).

There are multiple wonky liberal voting method proposals (preferential voting, forms of proportional electoral vote allocation, the Maine/Nebraska district method, or permitting voters to select all candidates considered acceptable to them, or some proposal drawing influence from other or multiple of those methods) which strengthen third parties' prospects within the framework of the EC.

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

The criteria should be always and consistently be a 15% national polling average AND the ability to attain 270 electoral votes

Kennedy's close enough

Let him debate

[Sir Mohamed]

Debates have turned into a s-show lately anyway. If we just cancelled all 2024 debates, nothing of value is lost.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He's only getting now 4% and that's in jeopardy he was really silly to think he had any chance . He needs to drop out. No one talks about him anymore

Just like no one talks about Garvey in CA no more it should of been Schiff and Porter

[Fight for Trump]

We don't need TV "debates".

[DaleCooper]

Debates have turned into a s-show lately anyway. If we just cancelled all 2024 debates, nothing of value is lost.

It's basically just WWE wrestling. It's completely fake. I haven't watched one in its entirety since 2016.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I'm not opposed to him in the debates, but besides his croaky voice which is super irritating, he doesn't deserve to be considered an "equal" contender. He could be asked a few questions here and there about big picture policy but RFK should be banned from being allowed to respond to or interact with Trump or Biden(and vice versa) since the debate is about those two first and foremost.

[SWE]

That would just plain be a waste of time.

Take it up with the electoral college.

Wouldn't it be harder for a third party candidate to win in a PV system than our current one, assuming we kept FPTP? George Wallace's scheme to win enough states to throw the election to the house and then win there through backroom deals, while an  implausible pie in the sky dream, still seems significantly easier to me to pull off than for a third party candidate to win more votes nationwide than the Democratic and Republican candidate

[CookieDamage]

He should be in the debates so we can see him humiliate himself and cause his polling to drop like a rock.

[holtridge]

Why not let RFK Jr in the debates? The country may finally know where he stands on the issues.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Why not let RFK Jr in the debates? The country may finally know where he stands on the issues.

Yes, totally agree: the pro-Palestine, pro-LGBT, COVID hawk Zoomers planning to vote for him need to hear in his own words what the thinks about Palestine, LGBT issues, and COVID.

[2016]

RFK Jr. is at 17 % in the Marquette Poll, needs 1 more Poll above 15 % to qualify for the CNN Debate.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

That would just plain be a waste of time.

Take it up with the electoral college.

The electoral college doesn't necessitate a first-past-the-post/plurality winner-take-all allocation of every constituency's electoral votes (which is the actual component of the EC as it exists today which arguably prevents Third Party Candidates from winning). A nationwide popular vote for president under a first-past-the-post winner-take-all system, even with runoffs, (as is done in France, Turkey, and other countries that elect their president by NPV), would be no less disadvantageous to third party candidates, and if anything would strengthen the two-party stranglehold on American presidential elections, considering that the EC permits candidates who have limited regional support to gain a share of the EV by focusing on those states and districts where they do stand a chance (see: 1948 POTUS election, 1968 POTUS election, 2024 Democratic POTUS Primary in American Samoa, etc.).

There are multiple wonky liberal voting method proposals (preferential voting, forms of proportional electoral vote allocation, the Maine/Nebraska district method, or permitting voters to select all candidates considered acceptable to them, or some proposal drawing influence from other or multiple of those methods) which strengthen third parties' prospects within the framework of the EC.

That would just plain be a waste of time.

Take it up with the electoral college.

Wouldn't it be harder for a third party candidate to win in a PV system than our current one, assuming we kept FPTP? George Wallace's scheme to win enough states to throw the election to the house and then win there through backroom deals, while an  implausible pie in the sky dream, still seems significantly easier to me to pull off than for a third party candidate to win more votes nationwide than the Democratic and Republican candidate

[Kleine Scheiße]

Woke af tbqfh

[Minnesota Mike]

Count me in the 29%. There is nothing requiring any candidate debate to debate any other candidate nor should there be. Personally I think debates are already over rated, diluting the product with candidates who can't win will just make them even worse.

[Minnesota Mike]

That would just plain be a waste of time.

Take it up with the electoral college.

Wouldn't it be harder for a third party candidate to win in a PV system than our current one, assuming we kept FPTP? George Wallace's scheme to win enough states to throw the election to the house and then win there through backroom deals, while an  implausible pie in the sky dream, still seems significantly easier to me to pull off than for a third party candidate to win more votes nationwide than the Democratic and Republican candidate

Wallace knew he had no chance to win, his aim was was to become king maker and throw his support to the party that offered him the most in rolling back civil rights.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Why not let RFK Jr in the debates? The country may finally know where he stands on the issues.

Yes, totally agree: the pro-Palestine, pro-LGBT, COVID hawk Zoomers planning to vote for him need to hear in his own words what the thinks about Palestine, LGBT issues, and COVID.

I'm pretty sure that's not the demographic that he's targeting nor are attracted to his campaign, especially the Covid hawk part of it.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I actually agree that RFK and the third parties should be allowed to debate so that America can finally realize once and for all that the third party candidates are even more insane than the major party candidates.