The compulsory Presidential Debates are on the horizon with the first debate kicking off this Wednesday, October 3rd. It is a custom of our presidential election season, in which both the Republican and Democrat nominees’ standoff with proctored questions and address important issues at hand. It is a de facto aspect of the election procedure, without any constitutional mandate outlining the events. The debate is a great opportunity for voters to hear the nominees perspectives and even have personal questions answered; the only issue at hand is the exclusivity of the events—not providing Americans access to hear all of the presidential nominees.
This may be shocking, but there are actually other candidates this election (and every election,) whom are excluded from these events. This year Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson are the big names who have not been invited to participate in the debates. And Johnson is pissed off, as you should be too.
Johnson has filled an anti-trust lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the private Commission on Presidential Debates, and the Republican and Democratic parties, are unlawfully preventing his participation. Johnson’s spokesperson Ron Nielson explained, “Someone has to stand up and call this what it is—a rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly,” and that person is Gary Johnson.
The private commission maintains that the debates are only open to candidates who are “constitutionally eligible” to hold the presidency: achieved ballot access in enough states hypothetically to win the Electoral College majority in November. On top of that they must have support from a minimum of 15 percent of the national electorate (determined by five polling organizations the commission chooses). These are insurmountable obstacles for both Johnson and Stein, as many voters are unaware of their low-pro political parties, which deviate from our ostensibly binary system.
In 2000, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan filled suit against the Commission demanding inclusion, and failed. It is likely going to play out similarly with Johnson’s suit, though it is yet to be determined. However, if the suit succeeds, the debates this year will be required to include both Johnson and Stein, or face cancelation.
While the Commission labels themselves “nonpartisan,” it is perversely staffed by equal parts Republican and Democrats, and former chairs of each party serving as chairmen. The 15 percent voter support clause was instated in 1992; prior candidates only needed 5 percent support in polls. This regulation was changed it to ensure that third parties would not threaten the circumscribed binary norm.
The shortage of press coverage and polling for third parties unveils the true undemocratic reality of the current system. Most countries internationally have more than two parties, but apparently in our government giving the voter more options is seen as a threat.
By voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein individuals may actually help purify our “democracy” and prove that Americans will vote for whom they truly support. While voting for Johnson may take votes away from Romney, and Stein may take away from Obama, individuals should not be afraid to vote for whomever they agree with. In our representative government voting is purported as the pinnacle of our democratic right—flex that right and read up on all the candidates. You may surprise yourself.