They have been in the debates in prior elections(Ross Perot in 1992). The Presidential debates have been setup and controlled since 1987 by a "non-partisan" Presidential Debate Commission. In reality this commission is funded by the Republican and Democrat parties which is why I placed quotes around the non-partisan. They have set a threshold of 15% in the national polls to be included in the debates. The reality is that the 2 major party candidates control whether or not they will even participate in televised debates and they generally agree that 3rd party candidates will not be included else they will not participate.Are there any 3rd parties at all in the states? Like here we have NDP and Green. If there are, why are they not part of the debates? I feel it would give them a much bigger chance and this election one would probably win.
No. The reason it seems long is that it is long.The reason why it seems the election is so long is due to the media milking it all for ratings which generates revenue from the shity ADs.
CNN sucks in the ratings department and us Conservatives dub thy The Clinton News Network.
Are there any 3rd parties at all in the states? Like here we have NDP and Green. If there are, why are they not part of the debates? I feel it would give them a much bigger chance and this election one would probably win.
Yep Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote but carried no states for 0 Electoral votes which was higher than Wallace in 1968 who received 13.5% of the popular vote and carried 5 states and received 45 Electoral votes. Pretty cool site to see the breakdown for any Presidential Election: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1992They exist, but are largely irrelevant in the big national elections. Access to the debates would be huge for them, but there is something of an arbitrary policy by the non-partisan "organization for presidential debates" (or whatever they call themselves; but there is a group that specifically organizes these things and sets the rules for each one) that only accepts 3rd party candidates that are polling at ~10 or 15% at x number of days prior to the scheduled debate. This is why it is very rare to see them on the national stage, because they traditionally poll below 10%
It is also because most of them are pretty much Loony Toons which, yes--after this year is a term that needs to be re-assessed. Ross Perot (1992) was the last major third party candidate to get a podium at the debates (and the first in a very long time....but it is important to note that these debates first started in 1956 or so, with the Kennedy/Nixon one being the first that was televised in 1960?, and then abandoned for several elections. These really only started ~1974 or 78 as a consistent part of the election cycle) and managed to claim about 20% of the popular vote in the general election. There have been 3rd party candidates before, but *I think* that 20% was the highest vote count achieved outside of the 2 major party candidates of the respective era.
Wow that sounds super rigged then. The lesser parties should still get equal opportunity. Then again the biggest issue with the US elections is the insane amount of money you even need to participate. They have probably both spent over a billion at this point on campaigning. Commercials, flights on private jets, etc. It's just insane when you think about it.
You have to look at the system overall though. Unlike Parliamentary systems where effective coalitions can form when multiple parties compete and one doesn't win a controlling majority our system distills down to 2 parties despite the founders not really looking to set it up to do that. Note that absent the 12th amendment the loser of this year's election would become the Vice President. What the libertarians and greens should be doing is looking to gain power in one or other of the 2 parties as history shows that ideologies have been malleable in both parties over the years whenever popular movements grew large enough to wield influence.Wow that sounds super rigged then. The lesser parties should still get equal opportunity. Then again the biggest issue with the US elections is the insane amount of money you even need to participate. They have probably both spent over a billion at this point on campaigning. Commercials, flights on private jets, etc. It's just insane when you think about it.
They have been in the debates in prior elections(Ross Perot in 1992). The Presidential debates have been setup and controlled since 1987 by a "non-partisan" Presidential Debate Commission. In reality this commission is funded by the Republican and Democrat parties which is why I placed quotes around the non-partisan. They have set a threshold of 15% in the national polls to be included in the debates. The reality is that the 2 major party candidates control whether or not they will even participate in televised debates and they generally agree that 3rd party candidates will not be included else they will not participate.
Wow that sounds super rigged then. The lesser parties should still get equal opportunity. Then again the biggest issue with the US elections is the insane amount of money you even need to participate. They have probably both spent over a billion at this point on campaigning. Commercials, flights on private jets, etc. It's just insane when you think about it.
The reason why it seems the election is so long is due to the media milking it all for ratings which generates revenue from the shity ADs.
CNN sucks in the ratings department and us Conservatives dub thy The Clinton News Network.
Even Canadian news is riddled with US election news, it's actually quite ridiculous how long the election has been. Should be 1 month, MAYBE 2, tops. It's insane to drag it so long and so much money is wasted by everyone involved.
...claim the election is rigged.
You are living in a fantasy world, if you believe that graphic.
Hook, line, and sinker.
Also, MongGrel is getting trolled hard if he thinks OP is really a Trump supporterThat political cartoon is believable if you realize it's not a commentary on how things are, but how certain people perceive things to be.
I also love how the Ds are decrying his language but they still defend spooge-dress gate to this day.