Posted by Jed Ziggler at American Third Party Report:
Presidential debates in the United States are kind of a joke. No matter how many candidates are on the ballot in your state, or on the ballot in enough states to have even the most remote chance of being elected president, there’s pretty much always just two candidates. Oh sure, there was that one year where the billionaire with the big ears was allowed to participate. He even did pretty well up against a Bush and a Clinton (his running mate didn’t do so well). But Perot was the exception to the rule, the Commission on Presidential Debates does their darnedest to make sure only two voices are heard by the nation in the presidential and vice presidential debates, even going so far as to change their own rules to prevent Ralph Nader from participating in 2000, and simply ignoring the rules in 2012, when Gary Johnson met their qualifications.
Well Gov. Johnson isn’t taking it lying down. The Libertarian ex-executive and his group Our America Initiative are suing to change the way debates are run. Joining them in the lawsuit is 2012 Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who made headlines when she merely announced she was thinking about running again in 2016. Johnson, for his part, says he “wants to run”.
Their legal team includes another 2012 prez candidate, Justice Party founder & nominee Rocky Anderson. The former mayor of Salt Lake City, UT, Anderson has already said he’s not running again in 2016.
So will this third party dream team really be able to change the system, and debate an entirely different Bush and an entirely different Clinton? Time will tell, but personally my gut says no. Johnson was unable to sue his way into the 2012 debates, and I don’t see courts interfering this time around either.
But don’t give up hope! More and more petitions are being circulated encouraging the CPD to change its attitude, and there’s good reason to be optimistic. While some might decry the debates in Britain for including some regional parties but not others, the fact is that they are more inclusive. It’s not that far-fetched to think that such a situation could also arise in America. Maybe not in 2016, but eventually.
After all, just look at what citizen action can do; in 2013 America was ready to go to war against Syria! Well, the government was. American citizens weren’t, and they let their government hear about it. Reports of calls to congress being 499 to 1 against war that September woke the bastards up and shut the war machine down! Public opinion has completely changed the debate on issues like same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization. Your voice matters, your calls to congressmen & senators that seem to be ignored can make a difference.
If supporters of open debates keep up the pressure, then it might not even matter whether the OAI lawsuit succeeds or fails.
To paraphrase Nicholas Klein (not Gandhi), alternative candidates have been ignored, laughed at, and fought for so long, they’re due for a win.
Laura, I agree with you on the importance of third parties, and I have signed your petition. I continue to sign petitions because they make me feel like I’m doing something positive, but does anyone know if a petition has ever accomplished anything in this country? The White House seems to just ignore them.
The fact that Americans are now more likely to choose the label “independent” indicates that both the Republican and the Democratic parties are falling into disfavor. Additionally, the average favorable rating given to the two major parties has been dropping over time. About 58% of Americans continue to say a third major political party is needed. On the other hand, about 35% of Americans think the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the people. We need to support third party candidates, or risk losing another election to special interests. Please sign this petition to allow third parties in the 2016 presidential debates. Currently, 331 more signatures are needed to reach the goal of 2,500. This is the first step to giving Americans the government that they desperately need!
Link to petition: https://www.change.org/p/the-commission-on-presidential-debates-end-the-unfair-rules-disallowing-3rd-parties-from-the-presidential-debates
Also, use this link to sponsor an ad to show this petition to potential signers. Your contribution of $5 or more will feature the petition to dozens of like-minded change makers and drive it toward victory. The more you give, the more people will be shown this campaign and asked to add their names in support.
Link to sponsor petition: https://www.change.org/p/the-commission-on-presidential-debates-end-the-unfair-rules-disallowing-3rd-parties-from-the-presidential-debates/sponsors/new?source_location=petition_show
I agree.
The CPD lawsuit is useful for a number of reasons, even if it doesn’t succeed. And their legal argument does have some merit, in line with recent developments from the S. Ct. in anti-trust law.
I think, realistically, we could see something like a UK-style two-tier debate. All 270+EV candidates in the first debate or round of debates, followed by the usual D vs. R debate(s), or debates with the more restrictive polling threshold.
It will take a lot of leverage and effort exerted to get there, but I can see it being adopted as a reasonable compromise solution at some point, that one or both of the major-party nominees might be willing to accept if they think it will help them (like Bush insisted on Perot’s inclusion, and Reagan debated Anderson).
And while it wouldn’t be as good as having the Libertarian nominee in all of the debates, it would be a huge improvement over the status quo. It’s already a fairly common occurrence for state-level and congressional races, where both all-candidate and two-candidate debates often occur in the same race. Unfortunately the latter tends to get the most coverage and attention, and carries the implication of “these are the only viable electable candidates”. But at least it stills gives alt-party candidates a chance to be on-stage with their opponents.
I don’t think it’s hopeless and I believe Jed’s conclusion in the article is correct.
https://www.change.org/p/the-commission-on-presidential-debates-end-the-unfair-rules-disallowing-3rd-parties-from-the-presidential-debates?utm_campaign=petition_update_email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update
The piece says Johnson and Stein “are suing” but the lawsuit isn’t filed yet.
No, we will not.