[LibertyRocks]

Why not rather set a realistic standard for acceptance to the debates? What about only candidates who can WIN the election are invited. For example, any candidate on enough state ballots that could garner enough electoral votes to be elected should be allowed to participate. That way only the "qualified" candidates would be there, and it would be a much fairer way to set the bar, IMHO. I'm sure even the greens and Constitution Party would agree to a definition of a serious candidate being one who could mathematically gain a majority of electoral votes and be inaugurated.

[WildTurkey]

Why not rather set a realistic standard for acceptance to the debates? What about only candidates who can WIN the election are invited. For example, any candidate on enough state ballots that could garner enough electoral votes to be elected should be allowed to participate. That way only the "qualified" candidates would be there, and it would be a much fairer way to set the bar, IMHO. I'm sure even the greens and Constitution Party would agree to a definition of a serious candidate being one who could mathematically gain a majority of electoral votes and be inaugurated.

If polls show that that candidate really no support, i.e., no probability of winning the states, he should not be included. Basically, if no one wants to see you, why should you be invited to the show.

[AmishDude]

Look. Any moron can get on enough ballots of enough states to get to 270 EVs. The third-party whiners have kvetched so often that they get on the ballot and lose every time. There is no constitutional right to a debate and they only occur at the whim of whatever candidate wants them. Nixon never agreed to debates after 1960. And he won twice. You would think one of these third-party goofs could poll in the upper 2%'s at least.

Even the barely-sane Perot could manage it.