This already happened. 1992. Remember Ross Perot?

It's never happened since, though. And seriously should be considered.

Like Astro said, it would probably be nice. Nobody seems to know about a lot of the third parties. At first, that's where I thought I was going to aim my vote, but then again, third parties, like Democrats and Republicans, are all politicians with flawed agendas of some form or another. They're just more hidden, that's all.

My ultimate choice? "None of these candidates"!

Why not? Even if they are not nearly as popular nationally. It should be fair and balanced. Every major party deserves a right to have their voice heard.

Does this mean we get to hear Chuck Norris on the issues? :)

Seriously though. I'm not really sure how you're going to determine who gets included in these debates. I'm not a fan of the free-for-all model, that would just be absurd and would turn off folks from actually watching the debates at all. Fortunately as we progress further into the information age, I think it's easier for these candidates to have their voices heard by the small minorities who support them. I don't know that TV is the answer to the issue of fair representation while maintaining relevance.

If the 3rd party candidate is on 40+ ballots like Nader and Barr, then let them in. As most of you know, the presidential debates are a corporation headed by the Democrats and Republicans--what a sham.

Ok.

Which ones? There are usually dozens of third party and independent candidates that manage to get on the ballot somewhere. Some fairly legitimate, some just nuisance candidates.

So obviously there has to be some threshold standards for including third party candidates.

Get back to me when you've figured that part out.

Ya! why not throw the 3rds in there? O and hey a new idea, Get Hillary out of the race! I feel much more comfortable with a man as president! And Yes Im A Woman! As Simon would say thes canadates are so forgetable!!! WHERE IS OUR PRESIDENT???

Absolutely. The debates are worthless anyway so let's get everyone involved. We need comic relief. I can hardly wait for the Natural Law, Prohibition, Vegetarian, Socialist Workers, Martian, Marijuana, Christian Atheist and other parties to hold forth. That would be great!

Third party candidates are included as long as they are polling at 15%. I wouldn't be opposed to lowering that percentage number to 12 or maybe even 10, but throwing open the doors and letting whatever third party candidates participate that want to participate isn't feasible. There are a ton of third party candidates, some of which won't garner more than 1,000 votes nationwide no matter what kind of exposure they get. Having a "debate" that includes 9 or 10 people is just a circus, no candidate really getting to say much of anything.

In the interest of parity and free speech by all means include third party candidates. All exposure should be equal and fair.

Why not? The third an minor parties are real parties, have ideas, and deserve equality. The thing that grinds my gears is that the major parties are considered the only parties in existence. There are many more parties. It is the fault of the American people though, they deserve all the blame. These morons think that they can make a decision about how the world should run by getting all of their evidence from the daily news, a major party blog, or through some stupid Internet article full of ad hominims. I can't stand these people, they ask for democracy even though they exercise it almost as much as they exercise their bodies and, on top of that, they call for it's protection when the don't even know what it is. I know there are those of you out there that think that this review is not helpful and i would like to ask you people a question: can you name more American political parties than car brands sold in the United States? Unless you are what is now considered a political nerd, you probably can't.

Don't give me this crap that third parties don't deserve equal time since they have no chance. They have no current chance since you jerks blindly love the major parties and kill every form of resistance to them. You try to stop all intelligent discourse on the subjects of ideology by making the issues that are big in the campaigns seem to be the only issues that every man woman and child should care about. I don't give a damn about gay marriage or some bureaucratic method to make the country safer. I care about your ideology. Your view on freedom and liberty, your view on what the country should be like. Also, don't give me this spoiler crap that you and all of your mindless drone comrades are spewing after reading that it is all you should care about from a democan/republicrat news letter. The spoiling of elections, though now considered even questionable, is also your own doing. Like a huge company, if you give it too much power and take away all but, oh lets say, one opponent then you will create inefficiencies (ideological in this case), GROUPTHINK, and corruption (from inefficiency and group think).

And you want to tell me how you are a patriot, that you fought in some war and that makes you special, or that maybe that you are some arrogant condescending professor and you think that i don't get it? You don't get it! The country was formed so that it could be ruled by the people. The people have been very stupid for the last hundred years when it comes to politics and it is making us suffer. You people are as clear thinking and individualist as ducks, you see only two parties since it is your human nature clicking in telling you to only look at that which your moron comrades love. Its not third parties, but instead ideological corrosion, that is killing our country.

There are other ideologies out there that are not democratic. They are that way for a reason and blindly attacking them since you feel you are smarter is a testament to your ignorance and blindness. Think about things that you would otherwise trample under your feet of BS group think such as fascism, monarchy, and even clear thinking. Look at real neoconservatism or real classical liberalism instead of the illusions the morons of influence paint in your minds about all foreign ideologies. Think for once people!!!

I whole heartedly agree that 3rd parties should have equal access to pre-election debates. The ONLY reason Perot was included in the 92 and 96 debates was becuase he had more money than either party spent together in each election. However, does the average Libertarian or Green or Constitution Party candidate? Most likely no! I think if the candidate (regardless of whether they are in a party or an independent) has ballot access in enough states that qualify for the needed 270 electoral votes they should be allowed to participate. If this were the case in 2004 here's what the debate would have looked like: Republican - Bush Democrat - Kerry Libertarian - Badnarik Constitution - Peroutka Green - Cobb Ind/Reform - Nader Now those are some the major third parties in the US. Don't you think our society should have a choice in who they vote for. Some of these guys have great ideas, but nobody ever hears from them because they don't have the greenbacks to put ads on tv every five minutes like the Reps and the Dems do. If they could be on the debates America would probably throw some more votes their way. This seems like a fair deal for everyone because the two major parties will never have to worry about whether or not they will have debate access.

Yes. And Virile had a good idea about setting certain benchmarks. Collectively, Republicans and Democrats in power have seen to it that we are no longer a government of, by, and for the people. As to the viability of third parties, that is up to the people. They and those they represent deserve to be heard.

I don't really see the point of allowing third parties to debate during Presidential Elections. The Democrat and Republican Parties dominate the political spectrum, third parties only take away votes from the two major parties. Also it would be difficult to decide which third parties get to participate in the debates.

I would support more third party involvement in the presidential debates if some practical hurdles can be overcome. The biggest problem that I can see (as some prior comments noted) is that there must be some reasonable threshold in determining which third party candidates are included. Inviting every fringe candidate will dilute the process far too much, and these marginal parties usually are single-issue parties anyway. However, if a third party can evidence a certain number of registered members (for instance), their candidates should be included in the debates. This policy would have the potential of keeping the process honest, encourage actual membership in third parties for those inclined, and flesh out more issues during debates.

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to debate. I see it as only fair that everyone get to share their viewpoints before the election. Besides, there's absolutely no harm in letting people say their peace.

Why do we have third parties if they are not allowed to make their case? The Democrats and Republicans are both so lame they're afraid of any REAL competition.

Why not?Since neither dems or repubs are getting the job done,let us see what more parties can do. Another suggestion:GET BETTER CANDIDATES!!!!!!!!! Please?

The best idea yet. Open up The Marketplace of Ideas with a wider variety of products. It would force the two dominant parties to get out of their comfort zones when discussing illegal immigration, the national debt, foreign policy, affirmative action and other hot button issues. The way it stands now in our two-party system, we have a pair of organizations that are mostly different only in their rhetoric.

Good idea, but you would have to limit it to only one 3rd party candidate. I think 3 diff points of view is good enough to represent all of america. Ideally it would be one conservative, one moderate and one liberal. More than 3 candidates and you get a circus of overlapping ideas and the whole process becomes a joke. But 3 viable candidates is appealing and practically could be done.

I would have thought this would have been a natural. Of course, that depends on what party that could be. There are more parties than just two in European countries, so a Presidential style debate would be very difficult. We do have a Question Time in the UK where parties of all colours, media representatives and academicians can debate the current issues with the audience and this weekly programme gives insight into current party policy. Perhaps something like this could be done on a bigger scale.

if a viable third party candidate has an actual chance of receiving a reasonable percentage of votes i have no problem with them participating in the debates. if they are not viable then they are wasting the time of the american people. this is not saying that they should not be able to participate in the electoral process because i strongly believe that a third party alternative would strengthen the quality of the discourse and would keep the candidates of the two major parties focused on issues. we don't have a viable third party in america because the third party alternatives are a joke; the green party is made up of left wing tree huggers, the american conservatives are fascists, and the libertarians are just plain nuts.

What? We're suppose to give equal time to the Natural Law Party, Communist Party and the Green Party? No thanks.

While I would love it if we could live in a truly democratic nation, somethings are not practical. And this is one of those things. The media can't give ten hours of debate time per debate so that people who are representing parties most people have never heard of can talk! If you have enough support, and can prove it through petitions and other forms of proof, then sure you should debate. But candidates like Micheal Anthony Peroutka shouldn't waste crucial air time.

This must happen in order for it to be a democracy. Right now, the debates are an invitation only affair for whoever the press thinks might win. If we continue to exclude other parties and points of view, then the debates just become more propaganda for the major parties.

As long as the candidate has an impact on the election. Also, there should be addional debates that are one-on-one.

Americans are getting fed up with the two party system and want to hear a new voice for a change. Even though third party candidates have a low chance of winning an election, they provide competition for the Democrat and Republican parties. And they have more influence over elections than one may think. Nader in 2000 helped Bush win and Perot in 1992 helped Clinton win. A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote!

To the several reviewers who claimed that third party candidates have no chance in hell of winning, perhaps that is because they are never given a national forum on which to express their ideas for the country and what they would do if elected? Absolutely major third party candidates should be included in the Presidential debates. It would push both the Dems and the Republicans to further distinguish themselves from each other because there's no doubt that the third party candidate will insist, as they have done in the past, that there is no difference between the two major political parties. Every citizen who runs a viable (this means having more than a few dozen supporters) and able campaign should be allowed to participate in this debate, regardless of party.

If their support rises over a certain threshold. Establishing the threshold will be tricky, for who will determine what is legitimate and what is lunatic fringe? I suppose we could consider the entertainment value of listening to the National Socialist Libertarian Green Party or the Anti-Fluoridationists for Animal Liberation though.

I'm quit voting either Republican or Democratic I don't even need to explain why, and I'm really sick of people trying to tell me I wasted my vote. Imagine if everybody was just a little more open minded. Most of you say yes we should have multi party system and that your so tired of both the parties, but I bet 80%+ vote for one or the other.

Of course we should allow third parties to debate their respective positions. What do you get when you hear the Republicans and the Democrats debate? They argue over marginal issues; both candidates make a big thing out of small disagreements. When you look at it, there is little difference between the two parties. When there is such a small differential on the issues, you get elections that revolve around small issues like abortion and the various personal attributes of the candidates. Including third parties will challenge both of the main parties to take on major simmering issues like the wisdom of our drug policies, heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and genuine tax reform. It might help the American people think critically about what's really important. But I doubt this will happen anytime soon; it would rock the political establishment and God knows what will happen to the other two parties. Some people on this board say that having multi-candidate debates will increase the percentages that these parties get, but really I doubt this. It would take a strong grassroots political movement to see a genuine third party rise to challenge the two-party duopoly. And historically whenever a third party rises, both the Republicans and the Democrats end up co-opting the issues. You wonder why both of these guys haven't come up with a good idea for 150 years! Someone has to keep their feet to the fire and maybe that should be the job of the multiparty movement.

I am completely for allowing third party candidates in pre-election debates. It is crucial for the message to be heard from these smaller parties, because they often have the best ideas between the parties. Allowing them to partcipate would stimulate all elections and debate, and force parties to start dealing with the REAL ISSUES! Most of the major parties say what people want to hear, but parties like the Green Party have the best plan for the future, and THAT IS WHY they are the BEST PARTY. If a third party in the U.S. was allowed to be heard, they would enrich the whole electoral system. In Canada, they should allow the Green Party to participate in debates because they are the party of the future. It's certainly a good way to see how a person stands on various issues. People believe that by voting for a smaller party that their vote wouldnm't matter so they vote elsewhere, but IT REALLY DOES MATTER. We have the right to know about third party candidates. People might actually find someone they feel is worth voting for rather than just having to "pick one" every four years. The same old stuff from the same two parties is boring and predictable and not representative of the way most people think! So include third party candidates because they are the voices of the future.

Absolutely. But why limit to only 3 parties? Look at the British system, for example: candidates have to debate so many people that by election time the average Joe understands all of the issues the candidate represents. Compare the way Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher are/were able to present their positions to George W. Bush or Al Gore's crude, elusive gibberish. It's beacuse they had to debate the topics over and over, and they have to do so even after they're elected.

'bout time. Maybe then people might actually find someone they feel is worth voting for rather than just having to "pick one" every four years.

I would do this immediately. The third party candidtate is a comnplete joke, no matter who he or she is. It would be entertainment and laugh-out-loud to see them actually say something.

Why not? Every candidate should be able to represent him/herself in a public debate. It's certainly a good way to see how a person stands on various issues.

I don't think we should have just a third party in the debate, I think every candidate of their respective party should be included in the debate. The current two-party debate puts me to sleep. I'll agree with most that right now the other parties don't have a chance but things could change over the course of a few decades. Remember when the Independent party candidate, Ross Perot, pulled the vote of a lot more states than Bush 41 did in the '92 elections?

I think they should include third party candidates in pre-election debates. Some of the time, I like them a heck of a lot better than I like the choices for the two main parties.

It would peobably make it a little more interesting, even though the 3rd party wouldn't have a chance in hell.

All sides should be heard. It hard enough to tell the difference between the Republican and the Democrats. Give me VARIETY!

Yes! The same old stuff from the same two parties is boring and predictable and not representative of the way most people think! Including third party candidates would, at best, challenge party-line voters and single-issue voters to expand their thought-horizons. It would at least make debates more interesting.

Ross Perot and his "charts" found their way into the debates because he had enough $$$ to prop up his campaign. Ralph would have been much more effective in the debates, and really tested the two parties on their corporate ties in a national forum.

Its totally necessary for third party candidates to eneter the fray because without that stimulation then the two big parties will lose the already hazy lines between them. We need different views on different issues to be brought up and discussed.

Yes! There is no reason not to, other than to forever keep the chances of a third party emerging out of reach. I'm telling you, money runs elections. The debate committee, who is heavily funded by both parties, is an evil that is not exposed enough.

Re-structuring our Election process would be a good-thing for our Country... NO-- it wouldn't be a parliment (?) but would prove that ANYONE has the right/ability to run for office- and be taken seriously- even if they do not agree with the 2 majority camps! There should be 3 major Parties: The Democrat- The Republicans-and the Moderates, who's party would consist of Liberal Republicans and Moderate Dedmocrats who do not follow the current standings of their Party. Of course there would still be the Green Party and write-ins... BUT if we had TRUE CAMPAIGNE SPENDING REFORM where each candidate had a CEILING on spending, and the TV Networks weren't price-gouging for advertisements (They routinely raise the price for air time 35% for all political ads) then ALL 3 Parties could be eaqually and fairly represented.

It's good to see third party candidates... some are good, some are nutcases.

A good idea. People don't have to be a member of one of the big 2 parties just to have good ideas. What's our culture's obsession with the number 2 anyway?

It probably wouldn't affect anything, but they deserve to have their voices heard.

It's a travesty that we only get to hear the scripted answer of these two automatons.

I truly believe that if Ralph Nader had been in the debates, he would have won. Look how many votes he got on his own. Too many people thought he wouldn't have a chance and thus didn't vote for him. We have the right to know about third party candidates.

Nope. Not unless we are prepared to totally reform our whole political structure (create a parliament type structure, campaign financing, etc.)

Absolutely. If you make the ballot, you should be heard! Plus, make the debators FOLLOW THE RULES. Kick them out if they violate them....If you can't follow the rules of the debate, why should I trust you to the highest office in the country?