Both President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, have been traveling throughout the country over the past few weeks encouraging their supporters to get out and vote for them. When he was on campus last Friday, Vice President Joe Biden urged his audience to go to the polls and vote for Obama. But as the election season wears on, many voters are finding that they fail to identify with politicians from either party. In fact, according to a Gallup poll conducted on Sept. 12, 46 percent of Americans believe that a third party is needed to adequately represent the views of the American people. There is a need to give voice to the unrepresented views of many Americans, and yet aspects of our electoral system and the media's coverage of politics do little to right this wrong.
One of the most prominent ways in which third-party candidates are at a disadvantage is through the current presidential debate system. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a body established by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1987, oversees both the presidential and vice-presidential debates. The existing heads of this commission are former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Parties. This in itself should raise eyebrows over the motives of those on the commission. Chairmen are often known as some of the most loyal party members.
Presidential debates ought to be set up in such a way that the American people gain valuable insights into the ideas and positions of relevant candidates. In 2000, the Commission on Presidential Debates decided to implement a rule requiring that all debate recipients receive 15 percent support in five national polls in order to be included in the debates. But this measure completely disregards the regulations regarding the allocation of taxpayer funds in the Federal Election Campaign Act. This legislation appropriates federal matching funds for the subsequent election to any presidential candidate who receives 5 percent of the popular vote. This discrepancy begs the question: If we believe that a candidate is credible and are thus willing to give him or her taxpayers' money, shouldn't that same candidate be allowed the chance to have his or her ideas heard in the debates?
The second reason why third-party candidates often have trouble getting their voices heard is because the media largely ignores them. The best example of this during the current presidential cycle is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president and former governor of New Mexico. Johnson, who will likely be on the ballot in all 50 states, is currently polling between 4 and 6 percent when included in national polls. This may seem to be little reason to consider Johnson as much more than an afterthought in the presidential election. However, considering that only 26 percent of voters have ever heard of him, according to a Pew Research Poll, and that the former governor is polling near the double digits in a few key swing states, it would make sense for Johnson to receive news coverage. But this has not been the case. CNN chose not to invite Gary Johnson to its June 13, 2011 Republican primary debate, citing that his polling numbers were less than 2 percent nationally. But the only instance in which this was the case was when candidates who never actually declared their candidacy (Sarah Palin and Donald Trump) were included in the relevant poll.
The number of voters who identify themselves as Independents is increasing, and it is time that we change our electoral processes to reflect this shift in partisan affiliation. A two-term former governor who is polling near the double digits in several swing states needs to be heard by the American people, considering the great impact he can have on this upcoming presidential election. Even more importantly, we need to give candidates a voice if they have a reasonable chance at winning taxpayer funding for the future. We need to demand new debate rules and more equitable media coverage for candidates who bring fresh, popular ideas to the table.
