Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 12 comments on Third Party Candidates’ Mission Impossible

  1. Honestly I don’t think I would have known about this 3rd party debate if this article hadn’t highlighted it. Even though none of the options have any chance of winning it’ll be interesting to watch and compare. I’m sure at least one of the candidates will have a significant effect on the election through vote siphoning.

    1. It will be interesting conversation and comparison! Throughout the 3 RomBama debates, some third party candidates and supporting media outlets have made use of social media tools or streaming broadcasts to do live time commentary and live time responses to the same questions posed to Romney and Obama. For me, the discussion between the third party candidates has been more interesting, engaging, and productive than that of the mainstream debates.

    2. I’ve been an independent for over 20 years. I started out as a Republican, got disgusted and became a Democrat. Then they were taken over by the far left wing and I became an independent.

      I think American deserve MORE choices and this 2 party system is exactly what our founders warned us about.

      If you type in the word Independent or 3rd party, you’ll find a wealth of information about Independents and 3rd parties. Most Americans don’t know there are over 130 parties in the USA. Many Americans believe that they are not allowed to vote for anyone other then Democrats or Republicans. And both parties would rather keep it that way.

      Neither Clinton or Trump are fit to lead our nation. The stench from both candidates is so bad, most voters say they won’t vote. One man, who was in his 80’s and who I was talking to in the grocery store, said in other elections he’d hold his nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils, but this time he said that’s impossible.

      Independents now make up the majority of voters (43% vs {D 30% or R 26%}) yet the media has completely missed this revolution. You have to wonder why. We have the numbers to choose the president, if we can find a candidate and agree to vote for him. Of course then we’ll have the hurdle of the electoral college.

      I’m afraid if we don’t get someone other then Clinton or Trump in, our country won’t survive. We’ve already had 2 bad presidents in a row ad I don’t think we can survive a 3rd. Thankfully I didn’t vote for Bush or Trump.

  2. I’m very pleased to see this article. A constant source of frustration for me this past month has been the Commission on Presidential debates not allowing Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debate. Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 47 states. Jill Stein is on the ballot for 85% of voters. Jill Stein has also qualified for federal public funds for her campaign. Our laws have declared these candidates viable options for President. Their opinions should be given equal time in the debates. Elections are a time to discuss the future direction of America. It shouldn’t be this limited.

    No debate will seem nationally relevant if the Democrats and Republicans don’t attend. But why would the big parties choose to attend a debate that will give attention to another competitor? Thus the CPD’s debates, which restrict third parties are the only ones that get national attention. The CPD’s requirements must be diminished.

    A follow up: Yesterday Jill Stein filed a law suit against the CPD in Florida “claiming that they have deprived Jill Stein of her constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and free speech, as well as her statutorily protected civil rights.”

    1. Nice update on Jill Stein, Ari. That claim statement seems right on point. If you’ve got a good article about it, please post a link here.

      I hear you on the frustration of watching Johnson, Stein, and other third party candidates get shut out of the CPD debates. The upside to the whole situation in my eyes is that there was a significant amount of press generated that called into question the legitimacy of the CPD, about Johnson’s lawsuits, as well as the campaigns of the leading 4 third party candidates. More so than in recent election years past it seems.

      It is an interesting note that the campaigns of these candidates are as much about the fight for Constitutional rights and truly democratic election process the country was founded on as they are about running for that office because they truly aspire to it and believe they are the best person for the job.

      I honestly think the CPD (and perhaps other unjust barriers to third parties and their candidates) can be ousted as the candidates, parties, and supporters continue to ban together in opposition, or piggyback their individual efforts as Stein and Johnson are doing now, and push until the walls comes down.

  3. It’s really unfortunate that third party candidates don’t get more attention in both national and local elections. Third party candidates seem to more closely match the views of the diverse American political spectrum. Too many people settle for a major party because they aren’t aware of the options that might reflect their views more accurately. People constantly complain that they are tired of Democrats and Republicans not working together, and not getting anything done in Washington. Hey, here’s an idea: don’t elect Democrats or Republicans! Until 3rd parties are brought into the fold, it’s going to be the same story.

  4. Regardless of whether or not you’ve decided which presidential candidate you will vote for on Nov. 6, what party you align with, or how you feel about parties you don’t align with, I hope people will tune into these final 2 presidential debates between “third party” candidates, if only for the sake of being an informed voter, and supporting the kind of open inclusive debate that has been missing from our elections and needed in a truly democratic election process.

    I, for one, am excited because the conversation I’ve heard among third party candidates this election has been far more fruitful and interesting than the CPD debates.

    1. Johnson undoubtedly had the most support, and I’d bet that he advances to next week’s debate. However, I feel like his performance was as commendable as the other 3, perhaps a bit more energetic and impassioned. I don’t know about being the most experienced (although he certainly IS experienced and has probably the best track record of any presidential candidate in the field).

      An unexpected takeaway was how much I enjoyed Virgil Goode. I disagree with him on some major points, so he wouldn’t get my vote, but he was a very likable gentleman, and respectfully stood up for his views even when he knew they were unpopular in the room. A++ for him.

      A few things I absolutely loved about the debate:

      1. A broader spectrum of views. Goode and Johnson with differing right-wing perspectives; Anderson and Stein on the left, who pretty much agree on all issues, but have different approaches to addressing them.

      2. Actual productive discussion and debate about the best approach to our nation’s issues and future amongst adults. No bickering. If they disagreed they did so respectfully. And they also noted where they agreed with other candidates on the stage. Politicians from different parties working together – imagine that!

      One disappointment was no questions about climate change and how to address the looming environmental and economic crises it represents. However, given the focus of the second debate next Tuesday, I do believe the topic will be brought up then.

  5. If you watched the debate last night (or even if you didn’t), go vote for the two candidates you would like to appear in the next Free and Equal debate next Tuesday.

    The decision is being made by the public via instant runoff voting process. The two candidates with the most votes will debate next Tuesday, October 30th in Washington D.C.

    The instant runoff voting model is one being supported as a viable model for reform of the current “winner take all” Electoral College model.

  6. The reason we have a two-party system is our electoral laws. By having a winner-takes-all system, we force people to coalesce into two groups, with everyone right of center going Republican and everyone left of center going Democrat. They have to create these large parties because in order to win, you need 51%. That’s why we’ve always had two parties, and always will, so long as this system is kept. Proportional representation, on the other hand, results in many parties, as you can get seats in the legislature by getting over a low threshold (~2%). This removes the incentive for what would be very different people creating large blocks in an effort to get that magic 51% of the vote.

  7. I am afraid the only way to change the “winner take all” model is to keep one of the main parties out of power for 12 to 16 years. As long as Dems and Republicans take turns at being in power every 4-8 years, the system is working “as designed” (i.e. to maintain status quo), and the two main parties are happy to stick with it.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *