What can be done to finally allow third political party, independent candidates for Pres./V.Pres. in debates?

Question

In the U.S., people at least know that there are more than two political parties that presently exist even if they also don't know what they truly are all about. It doesn't make any sense to keep going about each and every Presidential/ Vice Presidential election and pretend that there's only the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in existence in the United States. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, and other political parties also presently exist in the U.S. whether people like it or not. There are also sometimes situations where there are very strong independent candidates for Pres./V.Pres. as well with H. Ross Perot being one such example of this in 1992 and in 1996. At least, Mr. Perot was included in the debates in '92, and the media ratings were the highest ever because of his inclusion. What are the major political parties afraid of by not including others? More of the general public would pay attention to all of the debates!

Answer 1

instant runoff voting would make a third party candidate a viable option:

IRV is a reform that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, so that in cases where there is no initial majority winner, a runoff recount can be conducted without a new election to determine which candidate is actually preferred by a majority of voters.

The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote. The animated links to the left can help clarify this simple process, but let's talk about why it's a superior voting system, first:

When there are more than 2 candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority.
Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50% of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate?

It will allow more candidates, including independents and third-parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of "spoiling" the elections.
Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers.

It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes.
They'll be less likely to "go negative" if they need their opponent's voters, too.

IRV saves money.
Some states and local elections hold runoffs weeks later to pick the winner. IRV holds the runoff all in one election--saving money.

Answer 2

A party that is responsive to the people, not special interests. The problem with the two current parties, believe it or not, is that they're too similar. Most voters are not willing to vote for any candidate with unswaying conditions, and the two current parties know it. Bush says hes for less spending, yet spends like a democrat. Kerry was actually quoting Ronald Reagan and reaganomics during his campaign.

A third party will rise when a percentage of the american public gets tired of parties catering to polls and decides to vote for a politician that is willing to fight for principles. Perot never took it seriously. His VP candidate wasn't even competent enough to drive a car, and while he loved to kibitz the other candidates, he never suggested his own serious solutions. But he spoke his mind, which is what got attention. The last true third party candidate was Teddy Roosevelt when he attempted to regain the office with the Bull Moose party. His draw - He spoke his mind, offered no compromises to his views, and was competent. He almost won.

Answer 3

in your question you gave the reason. in 1992 their was a third candidate who had already run in over 1/3 of the primaries and had got on all the ballots in every state but 2.yet out of nowhere they brought up Perot to be in the debates,thus making sure no candidate but a democrat had a chance. Democrat's have the media locked down .and Independent candidates split the rest leaving democrats the office and the motto is destroy the country if they can't run it

Answer 4

there's a movement right now trrying to get 1 million signatures for their cause to get an Independent or a more unified government in place by having more canidates from various parties on the ballots so were not so confined to choose between 2 parties.

Go to Unity08.org to sign the petition and get involved. It benefits everyone across the board to have a more open and free from special interests & corruption type of Government & leaders. That is exactly what unity08 is about. Check it out!

Answer 5

Blondie's answer, sending you to Unity08.org is misleading. Their agenda is not to get third or more parties recognized but to tell the present leaders to stop fighting amongst themselves. I'm not sure how that helps us at all. I want my representative to fight against things that aren't in my best interest or the countries best interest.
But to answer the question, both the Republicans and Democrats passed laws to make it extemely difficult to run as an independent party. Without public funding available for third party candidates we will never hear from them. Sounds like Russia doesn't it?

Answer 6

I agree. They should allow Libertarian candidates, Green Party, Constitution Party candidates. But people who want to let the government control them, like the first answerer ("they dont matter, thats why") are scared that if everyone was turned on to a candidate who actually cares about America, the current puppets would lose.

Answer 7

well, perot bought tens of millions $$$ in advertising & media. thats why they put the funding restrictions so they wouldnt have the competion. perot got 28% of the vote, thats huge. really, he just pulled votes from bush handing it to clinton. tech is coming around & the faliure of the fcc to control the airwaves (yay!) will lead to better news. we have to keep them out of the internet.

Answer 8

Amen! I think it is a conspiracy.... I don't think that many people can be ignored unless something is going on.... Your not the only one asking this question.