":Current Libertarian Party statistics: 
 Seats in the Senate: 
 0 / 100 

 Seats in the House: 
 0 / 435 

 Governorships: 
 0 / 50 

 State Upper Houses: 
 0 / 1,921 

 State Lower Houses: 
 1 / 5,410  

 :Current Green Party statistics: 

 Seats in the Senate: 
 0 / 100 

 Seats in the House: 
 0 / 435 

 Governorships: 
 0 / 50 

 State Upper Houses: 
 0 / 1,921 

 State Lower Houses: 
 0 / 5,410 

 Why again is the Green Party in the infobox? They have absolutely no representation in legislation and lack any support in polls. Oh, but they have enough ballot access to theoretically win the election! Odd, I don't know the exact statistics, but how exactly does this matter? I'm sure there are other parties with enough ballot access, but how do you know how many people will vote, seeing as there is no ""crystal ball to predict the future""? I believe the Constitution Party also has enough ballot access (Goode) to win theoretically. This is not about neutrality or bias - it's about common sense, along with consensus, of course. I can understand (but not assent to) Johnson's inclusion, as he has ~6% average in polls, but in accordance with Nationwide opinion polling, as far as I've examined, there is absolutely no support for a Green Party candidate, nor is there likely to be any (speculation, but logical), nor are there any members currently in legislation in any houses (again, nor are there likely to be any, seeing as Johnson is losing to people like Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Stephen Colbert, and others not even in the presidential race by as much as 20% in these polls). And yet we insist that the Green Party has a magical ballot-access free card to justify the infobox inclusion, but not other parties. 

 I submit that the Green Party's inclusion in the infobox is just ridiculous and should be removed, seeing as there is (a. No evidence for 5% support in national polls, (b. No presumptive nominee (nor nominee), (c. No current members in legislations, and (d. Lack of significant media coverage. These criteria must be taken into account, and not blindly ignored simply because of mathematical possibility, ballot access, and perceived neutrality; due weight is given due to how negligible these candidates' vote percentages are likely to be. If there is a sudden surge in Green Party support polling, then we will add the party to the infobox. It's really that simple. Since it is virtually nonexistent now, it should not be in the infobox. Ballot access should not be the only criterion for infobox inclusion (as it seems to be), rather, article inclusion only. I agree with the original poster in that the obvious two-party system (seats= infobox position) in America should be upheld, as with his example of the Canadian elections, and I acknowledge the consensus of 5% in polls for infobox inclusion, but I absolutely do not agree with the notion that any candidate/party that has a mathematical possibility ballot-wise to win the election should be included in the election - what if no one votes, writes in the candidate, etc.? Reasonable criteria, such as the US presidential debate requirements, should be taken into account (and met) in order for significant coverage, something an inclusion in the infobox may stir up unneeded confusion. 

 ""Judging candidates' worthiness of attention based on mainstream media coverage is even more grossly unencyclopedic and demonstrates a bias unworthy of Wikipedia"". - What? I believe that is a major criterion of notability for Wikipedia, and is of obvious importance to contemporary articles of events such as this. Again, neutrality within reason, please - no official representation in legislation, no Green Party in the infobox. Inclusion of the party, as OP suggested, is completely fine, encouraged, and non-biased (obviously). Inclusion in the infobox already has some assumption of bias for practical purposes (look at other upcoming elections, such as the Greek one in July, only parties with seats in legislation are listed) and it looks as though some rather impractical radical individuals are attempting to ignore this and list everyone with a minute possibility of winning the election in the infobox (Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties), instead of those who have a reasonable and credible possibility (those with seats in legislation and nationwide polling support).  

 Delete the Green Party from the infobox, at least. Ballot access should not be the only criterion for inclusion - it should be common sense, ultimately. ""Libertarian and Green Parties should stay in the infobox unless and until they fail to meet the threshold of significance used