Green party candidates not included in debates, given equal coverage?

Why are green (or 3rd) party candidates often not invited to debates and their issues and policies not given equal coverage?





This happened in my state (TN) recently with the race for U.S. Senate when the green party candidate, Chris Lugo, was not included in the debates between Bob Corker and Harold Ford Jr. in Memphis and Chattanooga. He is a viable third party candidate and went through the same steps as the major party candidates, so why are his views going widely unheard? I am an independant voter and do a lot of extra research about the candidates to make sure that I know the policies and political histories of the person I vote for. However, many people don't do this as they believe they can gain all the information they need through televised debates %26amp; newspaper coverage. Thus my question, WHY, why are all parties not included in debates and their issues/policies not given equal coverage!? Doesn't this lead to voters who are not fully informed of their choices?

Green party candidates not included in debates, given equal coverage?
The status quo, two party system fears the third party candidates. They will not allow them to be included because they are affraid they will begin to lose power if one of these third parties starts to make sense to people and starts to address the issues the R's and D's are affraid to address. They have a great market monopoly, why let another "business" come forward and undermine that monopoly!?!





So to answer your question, third parties and independent's are a threat to the two party politics of America and so will never be allowed to be a part of debates because they are afraid!





Anyways......I am an independent and proud of it...and I often think it is BS that they do not allow EVERY candidate to be in the debates regardless of the fact that this will take more time. They have the RIGHT to get their voices heard and allow the American electorate to make a better, more informed choice.
Reply:Third parties don't have a large enough installed base, whereas Democrats and Republicans are entrenched in their fortresses and have tremendous marketing clout. Third parties yell a lot, but are usually laughed at and ignored.





In fact, the last third party that's was successful in American history was a nutzo anti-slavery, pro-abolition party called the Republicans, who put forward some tall lanky guy for President. He won.





So, IMHO, third parties should not be ignored. New ideas often come from new places.
Reply:Unfortunately money talks and third parties are just not supported by the powers that be. The Washington crowd, lobbyists like the way it is set up and the congress makes the laws which are designed to keep outsiders out. The parties choose who will run and play on their team. We really don't have a fair choice.





No, people would rather watch American Idol and such than take the time to learn about their own representatives. Then they make up their minds through commercials which are no more meaningful than an ad about what is the best cereal.
Reply:sorry, just passin' by
Reply:Let me preface my answer by saying that there are many valuable candidates from third party ventures. We have a two party system. Other parties are welcome to toss their hats into the ring, but they don't have a chance from the start. A vote for a third party candidate is a throwaway vote. Not by design, but by practicality. The very best effect a third party candidate can have is to dissuade voters from supporting candidates closer to their way of thinking. Several elections have been thrown by third party efforts in the biggest contests. For example, Ross Perot took, what was it? 3-5% of the vote for president and threw the win to the worst candidate on the ballot. Turns out that Ross was a little bonkers to boot. But under the influence of handlers, he sounded pretty sane.


http://judgeright.blogspot.com
Reply:nader rules, bring him back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply:A viable candidate is one with a chance to win. If you want Corker to win and the Republicans to continue to control the Senate with big Dick breaking ties, then by all means waste your vote on the





G (etting)


R (epublicans)


E (lected)


E (very)


N (ovember)





party.
Reply:YES,but the states is not alone uk tv does exactly the same, in local elections they or any of the other parties only get a mention at the count, ie when they lose, newspaper coverage is biased and lead only to the major parties, unless a so called celebrity happens to be in town. on thier bandwagon. LF
Reply:money talks; perot was included in the 92 debates because he had enough to gather 17% of the vote - the rest dont gain that kind of press because they dont have the money to make people listen.

shoe zippers