You're viewing a single thread.
There should be a debate on substantive issues, but there's no reason to include a fringe candidate who isn't even on the ballot in most states.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
She's on the ballot in my state, and I wouldn't say she is a fringe candidate since there are other green party members who have been elected in political positions.
As of 2023, the Green Party is the fourth-largest political party in the United States by voter registration, behind the Libertarian Party.
If we wanna do away with a corrupt 2-party system, then we need to accept 3rd parties.
And if the two main parties are so good and awesome, then they should have no problem decimating a 3rd party candidate in the debates.
The fourth largest still only receives like, a percentage of the votes nationally. Green Party is absolutely fringe. So is the third largest with RFK.
At the state and local level it’s easy to get elected just by showing up.
In any case a lot of the green party’s policy is fringe.
Ok, so what is the number for you to not consider a party "fringe"?
The Green Party has gotten significant support in elections, especially at the local level.
In 2020, Howie Hawkins, the Green Party presidential candidate, secured over 400,000 votes nationwide.
The party has had several elected officials, including mayors and city council members, across the country, showing it's more than just a protest vote.
There are more than 240,000 registered Green Party members.
So how many voters have to be registered before it's considered "not fringe."
And IF it does get the amount of voters you think would qualify, then you gonna support a debate?
Fringe isn’t something easily defined by hard thresholds
They’re on the margins, at the edges of the political space.
And to put that 400k into perspective… the difference between Biden and Trump in New York was 1,992,889 in 2020.
Nationally, Biden beat Trump on the popular vote by 7,059,526; not to mention the big fat goose egg of electoral votes that 400k counts as.
If that’s not stark enough, that 400k represents zero-point-two-six percent of the total votes.
The entire party would have to carpet bag to Wyoming to get a single EC vote. Or maybe one of the Dakota’s.
Across the nation, there are thousands of elected officials that run unopposed. It’s not hard to get elected just by showing up in some of these places.
Ok, so at what point does that change for you?
What is the number you think should count?
And if Green Party hits that number, do you think they should be allowed to debate the Dems and Repubs?
You’re sealioning.
As I’ve already said:
Fringe isn’t something easily defined by hard thresholds They’re on the margins, at the edges of the political space.
There is no special threshold. The idea of being “fringe” is inherently nebulous.
For debates, that’s something established by the candidates. Nobody can make them debate each other, or include random 3rd parties.
Neither Harris nor Trump are going to debate her. Because she’s on the fringe of American politics.
if Stein wants onto that debate stage, she’s going to have to show ignoring her is more dangerous than playing to her apparent lack of awareness, and to put it bluntly… that’s not going to happen.
Oh, so NOW there's no numbers that will make the party not fringe.
lol Right. Dude, just admit it. You're so scared that Trump might win, you are mad that not everyone is voting for Harris.
You keep being scared. I'll keep voting for who I want to.
What are you afraid of tho? I mean, if Stein has no chance, and Harris is so awesome, then you are a shoo in to win. Right?!
Why so angry and afraid of a 3rd party that you think has no chance and no hope? Shouldn't affect you at all, right?!
Oh, so NOW there's no numbers that will make the party not fringe.
Not. What. I. Said.
And I think you know that. I’m not going to give you a hard number because that’s being pedantic and not worth the time.
Why so angry and afraid of a 3rd party that you think has no chance and no hope? Shouldn't affect you at all, right?!
In a debate? C’mon. You can do the risk-reward analysis as well as I can.
There’s practically zero upside, and they’d have to spend time, energy and money that can be better spent elsewhere.
It’s entirely natural to be strategic, and the simple fact is, the barely-a-quarter percentage of voters is going to get reached either way; and there’s a lot more to be gained with other events.
I’m not going to give you a hard number because that’s being pedantic and not worth the time.
Of course you don't have a hard number. Because the reality is that you just don't want 3rd party options.
Attitudes like yours are what make me happy to vote for 3rd parties.