Polls last fall suggested that Donald Trump was the least popular presidential nominee ever. They also showed Hillary Clinton was the second least popular.
Polls last fall suggested that Donald Trump was the least popular presidential nominee ever. They also showed Hillary Clinton was the second least popular.
That limited, dissatisfying choice prompted Americans’ desire for another option and helped give rise to Gary Johnson. A Libertarian former New Mexico governor, Johnson clawed his way to people’s attention, registering about 10 percent in the polls. His campaign crumbled partly because of a couple of gaffes (“What is Aleppo?”) — but also because entrenched interests firmly stack the system against independent and third-party presidential candidates.
One major example: the presidential debates, which are essentially off-limits to everyone but the Democratic and Republican nominees. Without that visible platform, independent candidates are forgotten and the two major parties are ensured a lock on voters’ attention.
That’s why we wrote in an editorial last August that “while the presidential election isn’t rigged … the debates sure seem to be.”
Now, a federal judge has generated hope that the debates can be unrigged and that voters can hear from at least one more perspective. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that the Federal Election Commission must reconsider the criteria the Commission on Presidential Debates uses to determine who can get on stage. …
We hope the result of all this is a process by which a legitimate independent or third-party candidate can get a crack at participating in at least the first presidential debate in 2020. It’s not that an independent candidate is likely to win the presidency. But with equal treatment in the debates, he or she could at least offer another perspective, force the major-party candidates to address issues in a different way and let voters make a more fully informed decision. …
— The Charlotte Observer