I just wanted to pose this question to everyone. Do you think that the media has hindered a third-party candidate from getting recognition and having an influence in an election?

Third-party candidates are not included in national debates which are televised (or to my knowledge any debates). IMO, this seems hardly fair and counterproductive to the democratic process. It is no wonder that third-party candidates are not having more of an impact in the elections when the general public has no knowledge of where they stand on the issues. The media and the debate hosts should respect the fact that these third-party candidates have as much a right to be heard as the major party candidates.

Third Parties and third party candidates have the onus of getting attention. They have such an uphill fight if they don't already have a name and a lot of money. I don't think the media quashes third parties. Buchanon, Nader, and Perot get plenty of attention. How many people didn't know who the governor of Minnesota was? How many people can name any other governors from MN?

The current batch of alternative parties have positioned themselves out of the running. If a new 3rd party was to come along that actually tried to appeal to the middle ground, it might have a chance. The nation is a bit polarized with only 2 viable parties, and it seems to me that some of the factions within them are causing a lot of embarrassment to the majority of those parties. As a Republican, I don't llike the 'moral majority' fundamentalist types who would dictate morals to the rest of us, the extreme capitalists who place instant profits ahead of ethics, and the idea that a good education is only available to the self appointed elite of this country.
If I was a democrat, I would have issues with the far left who have attached themselves to that party.
I wonder if a Moderate party would attract conservative democrats/liberal republicans in large enough numbers to make a difference.
So I don't think it is the media that is making alternative parties look bad, they manage do do that on their own.

I do think the media is part of the problem. Sure they give some press to the third parties but they editorialize them as if they are a side show. The media reports polls and use them to decide how much coverage they will have on the candidates. Polls do not decide who wins. That is what elections are for. All persons on a ballot should be treated the same. There is no winner until election day despite what media and other special interest groups would have you believe. Giving the two major parties preference in news coverage is definitely helping to perpetuate the current political scene.

It's unfortunate that a candidate's financial situation has an effect on whether or not he/she is elected. However, as it relates to the media, it shouldn't be this way. The news media is supposed to be objective. This includes making sure that third party candidates are given equal coverage even if they lack vast quantities of money or fame.

Eeyore said that Buchanan, Nader and Perot get plenty of attention. But they only represent a small portion of the third party bids. Without going to the website, very few people could tell you who the DemSocialist candidate for president is. I'll admit that there are quite a few third party bids for president, but there has to be some way to give them equal coverage and get their message and views out. Bill55AZ said that a moderate party would do well. But how would anyone know about this party? Your average voter might watch the news and a couple of debates, they'll never hear about a third party until they get to the polls.

I think the media needs to make some effort to include these candidates in debates and in the news. I would propose some sort of booklet distributed to all registered voters which describes the candidates and where they stand, but that'd be too costly. Does anybody else see any solutions to this problem (or if it's even a problem)?

Why would that be too costly? In CO, at least, they do send out a booklet telling you about all the new laws and candidates locally, why not add a national aspect to that?

In France, the elections last only 15 days, and three days before voting, the newspapers are not allowed to run anymore polls, and there are no TV or radio ads, becaue they want all parties to have a chance at being heard. There are about seven major parties, even though usually the center parties win presidency, locally there is a wider variety of parties represented.

One of the problems the American media has in covering third parties is the focus on elections as a contest. Look at any form of contest coverage in this nation, and you'll see that there's very little coverage given to those that don't have much of a shot of winning.

Now, in football, or dog shows, or NASCAR or the National Spelling Bee, lack of media coverage for your contestant isn't a big deal in the short term, because the contestant's performance is not dependent on the media. Elections are a whole other story. The media is the primary interface between the candidates and the voters.

How many of us here have actually met our city councilman, state legislators, Congressional reps? Few, but we've all formed some opinions about them and their performance based on what they've done, what they've said, and most of our info about them comes from the media. Like the rest of us, the media has limited resources, and they are far less likely to dedicate resources to covering those folks who, in the media decision maker's assessment, have little chance of winning. And so it continues, a catch 22. A third party candidate has little chance of winning, so he doesn't get the coverage. He doesn't get the coverage, so he has little chance of winning.

For the stability of the American system the traditional two-party mechanism is important for everybody and the mainstream/corporate media have a in-built desire to ensure that the public don't find out about third party candidates, who tend to lack credibility anyway.

Arnie Carlson (1990-1998), and Perpich (1978-1990)

I'm from Minnesota so I should know. Anyway wasn't Rose Perot inculded in the 1996 Presidential Elections.

I have to agree with Bill- the third parties are all too extreme in one area or another, and take themselves out of the running, and I think the media let's them talk themselves right into a sideshow act!

What do you think is so extreme about the Greens and Libertarians? Also, I don't think the media lets the third parties talk themselves into a "sideshow act." The media portrays them as such. This may help to explain your attitude towards the third parties.

Don't get me wrong, I am commenting more on the fact that the average voter would make them out to be extreme, and then it turns into a sideshow on it's own. I like Ralph Nader. I think he has more integrity in his little finger than all the other candidates combined. He even has a sense of humour, he attended and spoke at the national corvair club meeting, and explained his talk about the corvair. But he is considered extreme because of his stand on consumer protection and enviromental controls, none of which I personally would consider extreme, but my mom and dad certainly think they are! I think the personalities themselves, such as Ross Perot, and oh, I forget the name of one of the Libertarian guys, are what really create the sideshow. Why can't we get a multi-billionare moderate to create his own party that isn't wierd? LOL

And one final point, is that both the dems and repubs have become very polished at taking the wierd out of thier candidates, and have handlers throughout the campaign to make them not seem so extreme even when they are!

We have a working theory at my job (a psych hospital) that ALL poeple that seek higher office are sociopaths in one way or the other, because of the inherent nature for the drive for the quest for powers over others. It is just that the "established" parties are better at hiding thier peculiar mental neurosis!

The only reason they got attention was because they either held bizarre beliefs, espoused bizarre politics or otherwise provided a media circus. None of them were portrayed positively in the media, just as an oddity.

The problem with most of the third parties is that's exactly what they are: an oddity. Most don't focus on a broad range of political issues, they just stick to one tiny issue and have no clue what to do with the rest. It isn't the media per se that causes them problems but their own lack of solid, intelligent platforms.

Ouch....that almost hurts...except I know it isn't true.
Take a look at www.lp.org.

I daresay you'll see a broader range of issues than on either of the two major parties propaganda sites.

The media doesn't have a vested financial interest in giving third parties air or print time. They are truly beholden to the Democrats and Republicans. There are no huge money backers or power brokers in the third parties, so they shoved to the side.

To the detriment of the country unfortunately.

Except that the central 'belief' of libertarianism is less government control, which pretty much does away with political positions on a wide range of issues. Kind of hard to take a position when "do your own thing" is central to their thinking.

Interestingly, I took their political quiz thing and came back as 100% centrist. Go figure.

See, I've heard that a lot and I just don't get it.
A big part of what scares me away from the two major parties is the circus sideshow element. The smaller parties attract their fair share of loons as well, I guess- but they are disorganized enough that the wack-jobs are treated as such. A Third party isn't going to wind up treating the likes of Strom Thurmond as a respected elder.

The media probably helps in suppressing third parties, simply because the news coverage is dedicated to democrats and republicans. It is always assumed that the third parties will never have a chance to equal either of the two current parties.


Of course, the media isn't the only factor you have to consider. Its also true that both the democrats and republicans are willing to stretch their ideals a little bit in order to pick up some third party voters. Most voters probably feel like voting for a third party is like throwing your vote away.

Ah, that's another one I hear a lot.
It seems to me that your job as a voter is to vote for the candidate that most closely reflects your views. It seems to me that voting for a candidate that doesn't reflect your views on the misguided basis that he's the "lesser of two evils" is really throwing your vote away.

Unfortunately though, most people feel compelled to vote this way, which is a huge disadvantage to 3rd party candidates

I do think the average third-party vote is thrown away, at least in large races. The system is setup in such a way that Perot/Nader/Buchanen types hurt their ideological next door neighbor. This isn't just election 2000 sour grapes, but can be seen in some scenarios for the CA recall and multi-party elections the world over. I'd rather vote for the person closest to my views who's electable, my views are specific enough no one else shares them exactly.
Third parties need to stop blaming their failures on the media. The general mindset seems to be that they should begin their existence as a party on equal footing with the Big Two, at least judging from how they operate. I think they need to be more like small European parties, not Mini-mes of massive, long-established parties. I've known people who consider themselves activists for the Greens, Libertarians, Dems, and Repubs, and both Ls and Gs seem to think its grossly unfair they should have to raise money, make phone calls, knock on doors, develop name recognition, etc. before they get media attention. Dirty little secret- a Dem or Repub that can't do any of that doesn't get covered, either. Media attention is the accelerant to be chased after, not a birthright to any wackadoo who declares he might run. Should private media outlets be forced to spend equal time on all candidates, regardless of how many, how popular, and how offensive/uninteresting to that outlet's core audience (BET covering Neo-Nazi parties)?
A good illustration of this is multi-party debates (which I organized in college). First off, most people who watch debates between parties are committed activists- their political purpose acts to fire up the base. Still, the high-minded ideal is that debates are supposed to be substantive policy discussions- witness the Dem primary debates to see how in-depth you can get with 10 candidates. 3rd parties are currently invited into debates if they're doing well enough to be deemed as significant competitors, not just spoilers, but the come-all-ye-faithful approach would have netted 16+ (all The World Almanac 2002 mentions) candidates in 2000. 3rd parties, collectively, got less than 4%, so if the socialists joined the libertarians + commies + constitution party+ greens etc., they still wouldn't break the 5% sought by Greens. So this debate would either be very, very long, or very, very insubstantial, with 3/4 of the time going to parties that didn't manage 1/25 of the vote. I'm sure that will both increase public interest and knowledge in how they'll be governed after election day.
I think that third parties in the U.S. need to learn to walk before they can run away with the Presidency (fat lot of good it'd do someone without any allies in Congress). Run for more lower offices, organize better online, force concessions for coalitions with the Big Dawgs. Be creative and don't copy the old parties. Then the media will cover you. If you build it, they will come.