This election year has been everything short of ordinary. Most glaringly, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the respective nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties, have involved themselves in scandals which have seriously called into question both individuals’ trustworthiness and character. Consequently, a majority of the country views both candidates unfavorably — 53 percent for Clinton and 60 percent for Trump. Nevertheless, both will take the stage at Hofstra University on Sept. 26th and square off in the first general election presidential debate; considering the weaknesses of both, it is unlikely many viewers will be left satisfied. This is precisely why the Commission on Presidential Debates should make it easier for third party candidates Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party to publicly make their own cases heard.
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a nonpartisan organization responsible for organizing and executing presidential debates. Thus, they decided that in order for a third party candidate to be eligible to participate in the event, he must obtain an average of 15 percent of the vote in national polls. Yet since American politics has long been dominated by the two major parties, very rarely do third party candidates get a chance to see the debate stage, as this high threshold discourages potential would-be third party candidates from trying. Currently, Johnson holds about 8 percent of the vote, while Stein has only a meager 3 percent.
Yet, this should not detract from their ability to debate against Clinton and Trump. Sure, their respective followings might be far below those of the major party candidates, but the primary debates have consisted of candidates whose poll numbers were negligible at the time of their performance. For instance, many Americans might have forgotten that the Democratic primary was a fight between five candidates, not just Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and that all five took the stage at the first Democratic debate because the polling criteria at that debate was lower.
While the other three, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb all spoke for substantially less time than Clinton and Sanders did, their sheer participation likely meant a lot for their (albeit few) supporters because they were able to see their candidates assert their views and ideas on a national level. Even though those three left the race following the first primary, the Democratic National Committee did the right thing by allowing them to compete beforehand.
Johnson and Stein differ from the other Democratic challengers because they represent part of the portion of the electorate who feels alienated and frustrated with the major party nominees. Together, Johnson and Stein represent a real slice of the U.S. population who seek an alternative to the current Trump-Clinton dilemma. Thus, to prohibit both individuals from participating in the debates merely because they do not meet an arbitrary 15 percent threshold is a disservice to the majority of Americans who view Clinton and Trump unfavorably.
Further, excluding Johnson and Stein merely because they do not meet that threshold is undemocratic at its core because it puts a limit on the amount of free exchange of ideas in our society. The Commission on Presidential Debates might not have had explicitly anti-democratic motives when they created their 15 percent threshold, yet having a non-elected committee establish a threshold at all inhibits our ability to have a say in politics.
The worst that could happen should Johnson and Stein compete in the upcoming debates is that a result similar to the first Democratic debate would ensue, where only Clinton and Sanders did the talking. Perhaps most questions would be addressed to Clinton and Trump, but Johnson and Stein would certainly have their chance to get their shots in, which is crucial given the uncharacteristic election we have experienced this year. It is unfortunate we are in a situation where a majority of Americans view the next president unfavorably, even before he or she has stepped foot in the Oval Office. Nevertheless, this is a reality, and we ought to have the ability to seek alternative viewpoints and leaders in whatever way we can.
Jesse Berman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.berman@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
BRUNMAN: Stop ghosting us, Governor Youngkin
By Wylie Brunman | December 8, 2024For the sake of students — and the Governor — his state administration should rethink its stance on this meeting and its approach to interacting with students more broadly.
