Ever since Ralph Nader took the slim margin of liberal-leaning voters from Al Gore in the 2000 and virtually secured the election in favor of George W. Bush, third-party candidates have been presented as a disruption to an otherwise efficient two-party system. This line of thinking was on full display at the DNC, where Democrats practically begged Bernie Sanders supporters to jump on the Hillary bandwagon rather than drift Independent. We even heard former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg – America’s most famous Independent – championing Hillary as the sane, competent choice in this election.
But as we approach November, it has become increasingly apparent that most Americans do not fall neatly into one of two parties.
According to my own research, over half of Americans are dissatisfied with our two-party system. Even more damning for two-party defenders, 81% of respondents think that it is important for an Independent to run for office, and 62% said that were they given a choice, they would vote for an Independent president in 2016.
These numbers are far from negligible; they’re large enough to not just disrupt a two-party election, but to also potentially secure a third-party president.
In a June interview with Financial Times, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson aptly stated that “A third name is going to do well because of just how polarizing [Clinton and Trump] are. We are seeing the death of the two-party system.”
If recent polls are an indication of how much better a third name will perform in November’s election, then Johnson is dead-on. According to Real Clear Politics, Gary Johnson’s post-convention polling numbers show that his support has doubled that of the 2012 election where he and Green Party candidate Jill Stein together were estimated to claim only 7% of the popular vote. Now, in 2016, Johnson and Stein are predicted to claim over 12% of that vote, with Johnson alone polling somewhere between 8% and 10%.
This should not come as a shock.
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were much more likeable, consistent, trustworthy candidates than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have proven to be. And in an election year where personality rivals policy in terms of gaining voter support, it is clear that if there was a time where a third party candidate was going to get some real traction, that time is now.
Of course, no one expects Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to win the general election. Despite the widespread, bipartisan dissatisfaction – Rasmussen shows that 20% of Democrats distrust Clinton, 31% of GOP voters say the same about Trump and 75% of unaffiliated voters don’t trust either candidate – the lead the two candidates hold over their third-party counterparts would be almost impossible to dismantle and overcome.
But that doesn’t mean that denying third party candidates a spot on the presidential debate stage is the right thing to do.
Indeed, to deny Johnson and Stein a spot on the debate floor this fall would signal to the millions of Americans who find themselves without a candidate that elites are, as usual, out of step with the average Americans. What’s more, to deny them spots solely on the fear of disruption from candidates with more money, media, and might than they have is downright unacceptable.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) sets the terms of the election, and it has listed three points of criteria for 2016. Candidates must meet Constitutional eligibility, candidates must have access to enough ballots that at least gives them a mathematical chance at reaching 270 electoral votes, and finally that candidates must average 15% in the polls by seven weeks before the election. This is, as you can well imagine, totally arbitrary.
These antiquated rules, clearly setup to limit third party candidates in debates, hurt our democracy. In order for a democracy to work, the people need to form an advised opinion, which includes issues often swept under the rug by the two major parties.
In an election featuring the two most disliked and untrusted candidates in American history, there seems no greater compelling reason to open up the debates to third party choices.
