As registered independent voters hit record highs and the numbers of registered Republicans and Democrats dwindle, should independent presidential candidates get more media coverage?

Independent candidates are often seen as “spoilers” who could influence an election by helping the perceived worse candidate win. But regardless of whether a third-party candidate is worth voting for—should their ideas be given as much consideration as a candidate from one of the two major parties?

Here are some perspectives on whether third-party candidates should be allowed to participate in presidential debates.

Are we missing a stance or perspective? Email us!

Stance 1: Third-party candidates should participate in presidential debates

CORE ARGUMENT: Including third-party candidates in presidential debates would increase the diversity of ideas discussed, encourage more people to vote, and better represent the nation’s political beliefs.

More arguments for this stance:

• Third-party candidates can represent the views of voters who feel that neither party represents their interests or values.
• Third-party candidates can bring new and diverse ideas to the table, challenging the two-party system and encouraging more innovative policy discussions.
• In a May 2024 Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, 71% of respondents said that Independent or third-party candidates “that clear a viable threshold” should be allowed on the debate stage. Among respondents, 66% percent of Democrats agreed and 70% of Republicans agreed.
• Ross Perot, a third-party candidate who historically earned 19% of the national vote in the 1992 election, participated in debates alongside Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush leading up to the election. 
• Third-party candidates can provide a check on the two main parties, pushing them to address issues they might otherwise ignore. Political scientists credit Ross Perot’s presidential candidacy for shedding light on the issue of balancing the federal budget.
• Excluding third-party candidates from debates can limit voters' understanding of their options and restrict them from making an informed choice.
• 43% of Americans identify as independent, outnumbering both Republicans and Democrats by 16%, according to a 2023 poll by Gallup. 
• Third-party candidates can increase voter participation by appealing to disillusioned voters who might otherwise stay home on election day.
• Only showing voters two options reinforces the “two-party doom loop” where voters feel they have to put aside their true preferences. 

Back to Top

Stance 2: Third-party candidates should not participate in presidential debates

CORE ARGUMENT: Excluding third-party candidates from presidential debates maintains voter’s focus on the most viable candidates, and prevents the spread of extremist views. 

More arguments for this stance:

• Third-party candidates do not win presidential elections and only take away critical votes from the two main candidates.
• “The idea that a third-party candidate could actually compete, let alone win, is almost unimaginable” in our current electoral system.
• The U.S. has not had a viable third-party candidate in over 30 years since Ross Perot. No third-party candidate has met the Commission on Presidential Debates’ 15% polling threshold since its implementation in 2000.
• Third-party candidates can split the vote, potentially leading to the election of a candidate who does not have majority support. Strong third-party candidates can dictate election outcomes,making the result come down to "how a very small handful of voters in particular places decide."
• “[Third-party candidates] candidates may well cement the election of the candidate they least want in the White House.”
• Third-party candidates can spread extremist views that don't represent the majority of voters.
• Third-party candidates often struggle with different ballot access laws. A candidate shouldn’t appear on the debate stage if they may not be on the ballot for all voters. 
• Third party-candidates often have less political experience and fewer resources than the candidates from the two main parties, which can make them less viable options for voters.
• “Third parties often organize around a single personality or a single issue and that can lead to less popularity among voters.”

Back to Top

Stance 3: Third-party candidates should be included in presidential debates if they meet fair qualifying conditions

CORE ARGUMENT:  More Americans identify as independent than as either Republican or Democrat, and it’s important to have a diverse set of voices in debates, but presidential debates also have a responsibility to maintain voter focus on only viable candidates. There should be a neutral and achievable metric for ensuring the candidates that are included are viable and relevant. 

More arguments for this stance:

• 1400 candidates have filed to run for president in 2024, but “we don’t want a clown show, and we don’t want our debates…to be derailed.”
• Third-party candidates need to participate in the debates to have a meaningful impact. 
• The Commission on Presidential Debates is a problematic private organization created by the Republican and Democrat Parties. It is bi-partisan, not non-partisan, and no third-party or independent candidate has qualified for the debates since it was established.
• Candidates and news networks are not required to include the Commission in the event planning.
• The Republican and Democratic candidates refuse to attend debates that include third-party candidates, rendering the debate irrelevant as a way to suppress third-party and independent voices.
• Candidates with enough state ballots to win the election should automatically qualify, as they have already proven significant interest and investment from voters in their community.

Back to Top

Clare Ashcraft is the Bridging Coordinator & Bias Analyst for AllSides (Center bias). Krystal Woodworth is the Growth Specialist and Executive Assistant at AllSides (Center Bias).

Reviewed by Evan Wagner, News Editor and Bias Analyst (Lean Left) and Olivia Geno, News and Bias Assistant (Lean Right).