There are only 2. None of the others has any chance of winning. The most they might achieve is to syphon off enough votes to swing a particular state from Trump to Clinton or vice-versa. Arguably, Ralph Nader took enough votes away from Gore in Florida in 2000 to give Bush the presidency.
Only Johnson has a chance of meeting the 15% threshold in opinion polls necessary to qualify for the 3 debates but the odds are against him.
You could argue that this is unfair and every candidate should be covered but that's not necessarily what the public wants nor what is ideal. Using our own system as a comparison, just how much do we really need to hear from Lambie, Hanson and Lleyonholm? Their "policies" and views are on the net if you have any interest, just as Americans can read up on the Libertarian Party, Greens and the Never Trump guy McMullin (?).
PS: On reflection, the analogy with Hanson et al isn't quite right. The way the preference system works here means they have a chance to win seats in the Senate and hold greater power than their paltry support would justify. But would we really want to hear too much about some motley crew who put up candidates in every seat without having any prospect of winning any?
That's the big difference between our 2 political systems. There are no 2nd prizes in the US Presidential election. The loser may end up with 200 or more electoral college votes but that means bugger all. With our representative system, an independent winning a seat in the House of Reps might make him or her a kingmaker in a hung parliament or give him or her the swing vote in the Senate. A few 3rd party candidates in Presidential elections have won the electoral votes in one or more states but that has only entitled them to a brief footnote in history.
Even worse, splintering the electoral college vote could lead to mayhem in the US. Imagine if Clinton ends up with 269 Electoral College votes and Trump lags behind with 230, the others going to 3rd party candidates. That would mean the House of Representatives would appoint the President. And that means the Republicans select the new President given the gerrymander they currently enjoy. Imagine if they appoint Trump. In effect, they would be giving the votes of the other candidates to Trump even though some may belong to a Never Trump candidate. Civil unrest would be guaranteed. Until the Constitution is amended to give the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most electoral college votes rather than the one who obtains a majority, splintering the vote is a nightmare scenario that the press shouldn't foster.
Only Johnson has a chance of meeting the 15% threshold in opinion polls necessary to qualify for the 3 debates but the odds are against him.
You could argue that this is unfair and every candidate should be covered but that's not necessarily what the public wants nor what is ideal. Using our own system as a comparison, just how much do we really need to hear from Lambie, Hanson and Lleyonholm? Their "policies" and views are on the net if you have any interest, just as Americans can read up on the Libertarian Party, Greens and the Never Trump guy McMullin (?).
PS: On reflection, the analogy with Hanson et al isn't quite right. The way the preference system works here means they have a chance to win seats in the Senate and hold greater power than their paltry support would justify. But would we really want to hear too much about some motley crew who put up candidates in every seat without having any prospect of winning any?
That's the big difference between our 2 political systems. There are no 2nd prizes in the US Presidential election. The loser may end up with 200 or more electoral college votes but that means bugger all. With our representative system, an independent winning a seat in the House of Reps might make him or her a kingmaker in a hung parliament or give him or her the swing vote in the Senate. A few 3rd party candidates in Presidential elections have won the electoral votes in one or more states but that has only entitled them to a brief footnote in history.
Even worse, splintering the electoral college vote could lead to mayhem in the US. Imagine if Clinton ends up with 269 Electoral College votes and Trump lags behind with 230, the others going to 3rd party candidates. That would mean the House of Representatives would appoint the President. And that means the Republicans select the new President given the gerrymander they currently enjoy. Imagine if they appoint Trump. In effect, they would be giving the votes of the other candidates to Trump even though some may belong to a Never Trump candidate. Civil unrest would be guaranteed. Until the Constitution is amended to give the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most electoral college votes rather than the one who obtains a majority, splintering the vote is a nightmare scenario that the press shouldn't foster.
)
