Jill Stein Blasts 'Two-Party Cartel' Controlling Presidential Debates
'The American people deserve to hear our perspectives,' says Green Party nominee of herself and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson
The presidential debates have been transformed into "a choreographed and carefully scripted farce that prevents honest discussion of the real issues our country faces," Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein declared in an op-ed on Tuesday.
Citing a recent Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll that showed more than three-quarters of likely voters want Stein and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson to participate in debates, the Green Party candidate blasted the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) as a "two-party cartel" that curtails democracy.
"The CPD is a thinly disguised scheme to protect the two establishment parties from competition," Stein wrote at the Guardian, "and perpetuates a political system controlled by the wealthy and big business interests."
A recent Morning Consult poll similarly found that more than half of registered voters believe Johnson should partake in the debate scheduled for Sept. 26 and 47 percent believe Stein should.
Observing that the CPD "also keeps the debates within a narrow set of issues determined by party bosses," Stein called for "a new independent debate commission" that would "reflect the true diversity of the American public" and in turn "usher in a new era of debates that truly inform the voters and challenge the status quo."
The CPD requires that candidates poll at 15 percent or higher in five national polls to be included in the debates. The RealClearPolitics average currently has Johnson polling around eight percent and Stein hovering at three percent.
But as Stein noted, the 15 percent threshold is an "artificial" and "arbitrary" barrier that does little to aid the free exchange of ideas. And with both third-party candidates "on enough ballots to win the presidency," Stein said: "The American people deserve to hear our perspectives."
To that end, she called on both Republican nominee Donald Trump--who criticized the 15 percent threshold in 2000--and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to "stand for open debates and American democracy" by demanding four-way debates in 2016.
Stein's campaign plans to reiterate this demand on Thursday, at a protest outside Clinton's Brooklyn campaign headquarters.
However, as writer Laurel Avery opined at the Huffington Post on Tuesday, the leading candidates have good reason to quash the growing call for more open debates:
People already know about Clinton and Trump. Both have a ton of money at their disposal, and they have received a lot of free exposure from the mainstream media, even before the primaries started. But just because someone is familiar doesn't mean they have your best interests in mind. The two establishment candidates don't want to include third party candidates in the debates because they know if they do, they might lose when you realize you have better choices.
A RootsAction petition calling on network TV executives to include third-party candidates in the debates currently has more than 18,000 signatures.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The presidential debates have been transformed into "a choreographed and carefully scripted farce that prevents honest discussion of the real issues our country faces," Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein declared in an op-ed on Tuesday.
Citing a recent Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll that showed more than three-quarters of likely voters want Stein and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson to participate in debates, the Green Party candidate blasted the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) as a "two-party cartel" that curtails democracy.
"The CPD is a thinly disguised scheme to protect the two establishment parties from competition," Stein wrote at the Guardian, "and perpetuates a political system controlled by the wealthy and big business interests."
A recent Morning Consult poll similarly found that more than half of registered voters believe Johnson should partake in the debate scheduled for Sept. 26 and 47 percent believe Stein should.
Observing that the CPD "also keeps the debates within a narrow set of issues determined by party bosses," Stein called for "a new independent debate commission" that would "reflect the true diversity of the American public" and in turn "usher in a new era of debates that truly inform the voters and challenge the status quo."
The CPD requires that candidates poll at 15 percent or higher in five national polls to be included in the debates. The RealClearPolitics average currently has Johnson polling around eight percent and Stein hovering at three percent.
But as Stein noted, the 15 percent threshold is an "artificial" and "arbitrary" barrier that does little to aid the free exchange of ideas. And with both third-party candidates "on enough ballots to win the presidency," Stein said: "The American people deserve to hear our perspectives."
To that end, she called on both Republican nominee Donald Trump--who criticized the 15 percent threshold in 2000--and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to "stand for open debates and American democracy" by demanding four-way debates in 2016.
Stein's campaign plans to reiterate this demand on Thursday, at a protest outside Clinton's Brooklyn campaign headquarters.
However, as writer Laurel Avery opined at the Huffington Post on Tuesday, the leading candidates have good reason to quash the growing call for more open debates:
People already know about Clinton and Trump. Both have a ton of money at their disposal, and they have received a lot of free exposure from the mainstream media, even before the primaries started. But just because someone is familiar doesn't mean they have your best interests in mind. The two establishment candidates don't want to include third party candidates in the debates because they know if they do, they might lose when you realize you have better choices.
A RootsAction petition calling on network TV executives to include third-party candidates in the debates currently has more than 18,000 signatures.
The presidential debates have been transformed into "a choreographed and carefully scripted farce that prevents honest discussion of the real issues our country faces," Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein declared in an op-ed on Tuesday.
Citing a recent Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll that showed more than three-quarters of likely voters want Stein and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson to participate in debates, the Green Party candidate blasted the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) as a "two-party cartel" that curtails democracy.
"The CPD is a thinly disguised scheme to protect the two establishment parties from competition," Stein wrote at the Guardian, "and perpetuates a political system controlled by the wealthy and big business interests."
A recent Morning Consult poll similarly found that more than half of registered voters believe Johnson should partake in the debate scheduled for Sept. 26 and 47 percent believe Stein should.
Observing that the CPD "also keeps the debates within a narrow set of issues determined by party bosses," Stein called for "a new independent debate commission" that would "reflect the true diversity of the American public" and in turn "usher in a new era of debates that truly inform the voters and challenge the status quo."
The CPD requires that candidates poll at 15 percent or higher in five national polls to be included in the debates. The RealClearPolitics average currently has Johnson polling around eight percent and Stein hovering at three percent.
But as Stein noted, the 15 percent threshold is an "artificial" and "arbitrary" barrier that does little to aid the free exchange of ideas. And with both third-party candidates "on enough ballots to win the presidency," Stein said: "The American people deserve to hear our perspectives."
To that end, she called on both Republican nominee Donald Trump--who criticized the 15 percent threshold in 2000--and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to "stand for open debates and American democracy" by demanding four-way debates in 2016.
Stein's campaign plans to reiterate this demand on Thursday, at a protest outside Clinton's Brooklyn campaign headquarters.
However, as writer Laurel Avery opined at the Huffington Post on Tuesday, the leading candidates have good reason to quash the growing call for more open debates:
People already know about Clinton and Trump. Both have a ton of money at their disposal, and they have received a lot of free exposure from the mainstream media, even before the primaries started. But just because someone is familiar doesn't mean they have your best interests in mind. The two establishment candidates don't want to include third party candidates in the debates because they know if they do, they might lose when you realize you have better choices.
A RootsAction petition calling on network TV executives to include third-party candidates in the debates currently has more than 18,000 signatures.