Since you like stirring the political pot, How come independents running for president of the USA don't get to be part of the debates on television?

[humanearth]

Just answer the question as you see it

[normalice]

Bernie Sanders is an independent and was at every democratic primary debate.

But in general if you aren't going to caucus with a major national party, you need to start small. If your independent ideas are what is best for your town then take over there. If it starts tonlookmlikenits not just best for your town but neighboring towns as well, maybe your party should try for county supervisor seats. And if it also turns out to be best for neighboring counties, then it makes sense to go for federal house seats.

The point is starting small is not only easiest it also gets what you need. National politics are largely for show. Not a lot gets done at that level because an honest representative government meant to reflect the will of half a billion people should be undecided on nearly everything, so most conversations are aboit why we shouldn't do anything. Granted, republicans tend to take it to the extreeme, but even then if the majority of republican voters prioritized the things polls say they claim to support, then presumably republican politicians would be phased out and replaced by republican representatives who also supporterd those things. If you believe your party ideas actually do represent a majority, then it shouldn't be a problem to become a mayor or city manager, some position of authority for which the scale of advertising is far less expensive.

But nationally, a two party system is fine as long as there continues to be a way for independents to influence the parties. Unfortunately only the democrats seem receptive to that. Republicans accept no variation to their objective to remove all government obligations except protecting the rich. And no one likes democrats because they are a bunch of nerds.

[humanearth]

Very Helpful, the icon thingy dont work for me

[humanearth]

Heck it worked that time, go figure

[normalice]

Thanks for mho!

By the way, I think it makes everyone wait 48 hours after asking a question before they are allowed to select an mho.

[najekim]

It's the way the Democrats & Republicans control things because other political parties are not allowed unless they garner a certain percentage in the polls and have the kind of financial pool the two majors have. This is wrong and needs to be eliminated.

[OlderAndWiser]

I believe that the rules for the debates require each participant to be polling above a certin level so that they have some claim to being a legitimate and serious candidate. I don't think an independent candidate has had that kind of showing since Ross Perot.

[BCA6010]

Have you ever actually watched the Libertarian Party primaries? They're a f*cking joke almost as bad as your average SNL skit, and other small parties are often just as bad or worse. The reality is that without one of the two major parties at least somewhat letting a candidate into the primaries to run on their ticket, you simply won't have the support or infrastructure necessary to get anywhere in a presidential election, anyway. Third parties and independents do manage to win elections at the state level as well as the house on occasion. Senator Rand Paul as well as his father are both libertarians but they typically run (or ran) on the Republican ticket anyway, and on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders isn't really a Democrat but they let him into their debates anyway (mainly because of his following). It's also easier to win an election as a party member and then declare yourself an independent afterwards. There's at least one or two democrats from border districts in Texas who are dropping their party affiliation this year, and years ago Joe Liebermann did the same thing.

[Astarlessnightsky]

In other countries there are three party TV duels or triels.

I guess in the US its just not that entertaining, with just democrats and republicans its a nice divide, easy to follow, and the majority will vote for their party regardless what happens.

Its not like putting someone from a third party on stage will change anything in the outcome.

Maybe when someone controversial like Trump runs as a third party candidate they may change it.

[DaveToo]

Independents are not a political party, perse. I agree that an independent should be allowed to debate the issues against Dem's and Repub's. The problem is, they don't have primaries, like the other two parties, so the public never hears the platform they stand for.

[AviatorTom]

Sometimes they do, if they have a high enough percentage of poll results.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Independents John Anderson and Ross Perot were included in the debates, and received 10% and 20% of the popular vote, respectively.

Since then, no Independent candidate has garnered enough support to be a serious contender, and only serious contenders are invited to debate.

[humanearth]

Maybe if they were part of it. There might be a up swing in their favor

[docster]

The organization sponsoring the debate usually requires the participants to be polling over a certain percentage. When Ross Perot ran as an independent in 1992, I believe he was in the debates and ended up getting 19% of the vote which caused Bush Sr. to lose to Clinton.

[exitseven]

They can if they can get enough signatures on a petition I think. I can remember Ross Perot being able to debate.

[jshm2]

Because Americans as a people and civilisation are still stuck in the 1800's.

[LegendaryIcon]

Because the system is set up so that independents can win the presidency. Right now, we only have independent senators (king, sanders). Both are left leaning though

[SmokinAces2000]

Because the two big cults will never let independents become president

[humanearth]

Bingo

[Twalli]

Because we're still a two party country. We want those that actually could win the election to talk the most.