US Presidential Debates Should Include Third Party Candidates

ResponsesFist Con Argument: Unintended Consequences Subpoint A: Too Many ContendersIt would not be feasible to have 31 candidates on the stage, however this is not what is being debated. Only third party candidates with ballot access to 270 electoral votes, or more, would participate in the debates. In 2012, the only canidates who would have been eligible were the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, and Green Party Candidate, Jill Stein.As of now in 2016, the only eligible candidates would be the Green candidate and the Libertarian candidate.And based on the format used for the General Election Debates, it would be very easy to add two more candidates.In the UK parliamentary election debates, the format was essentially identical to the US General Elections format, 7 party leaders participated in the debate, and no significant disorder "disorder", with the exception of an interuption from a member of the studio audience.The same is true in many other election debate around the world, including in Canada, Ireland, Israel, Spain, New Zealand and Brazil. This idea that adding two more candidate to a stage would someone cause disorder therefore bears no weight.Subpoint B: Media CoverageIt is true that the media is biased against certain candidates, however while Ron Paul recieved less coverage than other Republican candidates in 2012, just as we are seeing with Bernie Sanders in 2016, however they were still permitted some media coverage and allowed to participate in primary debates. Since 2015, Bernie Sanders has been mentioned in the mainstream media* 36,322 times. Green Party candidate Jill Stein, on the other hand, has recieved only 3 mentions in the mainstream media. This shows that Third parties recive no coverage right now in the status quo. By alowing them into debates, the media would be forced to at least mention third party candidates.*Mainstrem media in this context refers to MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Fox Business News and CNBC.http://television.gdeltproject.org...https://archive.org...Second Con Argument: Countries with third partiesThe reasoning behind the this argument is that by allowing third parties to participate, this creates too much discord in governments. He compares this to Wiemar Germany, however this argument is frankly illogical.The Nazis did not rise to power because of the multiparty democracy in Germany. The Hitler's rise to power was caused by the economic turmoil Germany was facing, which the Nazi's blamed on Jews and communists. Through a sucessful propoganda campaign, the Nazi's were able to win over voters and gain power, in addition to the use of Violence against the Socialist SPD and the Communist KPD. We must also remember that the Nazis never achieved more than 43% of the vote. Furthermore the German people did not "forget about democracy", Democracy was abolished through the creation of a police state under a climate of fear after the burning of the Reichstag. This was of course the Enabling acts, which allowed the Chancellor to rule by decree, created a state of emergency and allowed the Nazi party to ban other political parties.Numorous examples also disporve this notion that multiparty democracies always fall into gridlock and dictatorship. Austria, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the UK and Philippines all have well functioning multiparty democracies and are not at great risk (if any risk) for dictatorship.The Con cites Donald Trump as a reason for why there is a risk of dictatorship. Whether or not Donald Trump wants to effectivley abolish democracy is a moot point, as if Donald Trump were to participate in a General election debate, it would in all liklihood be as the Republican Candidate, not as an Independent. Seeing as Trump ruled out a independent run in September, when he signed a loyalty pledge to the Republican Party, and he reiterated this point in December. Therefore this argument lacks any relevence in this debate.http://fcit.usf.edu...http://www.cnn.com...New ArgumentsContention 3: Third Parties Vital to National Discourse, Exclusion Damages DiscourseThird Parties have consistently played a vital role in introducing issues into the national discourse. The Populists of the 1890s brought forward the issue of bi-metalism and the rise of monopolies. The Socialists introduced labour unions, the Free Soil Party were the first major political force dedicated to abolishing slavery, the Green Party introduced issues like Climate Change and corporate influence in government. There are numorous examples of this. By excluding candidates from debates, we prevent them from gaining a platform to introduce the issues that the Democrats and Republicans do not address. The major parties are in agreement on many issues, and by allowing differing opinions, it allows issues that were prevously a concensus become openly discussed and debated.http://www.pbs.org...http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...