Using Ralph Nader, spoiler of Al Gore’s 2000 run, as an example, Levine claims that giving Nader, a well-known candidate running for a not so well-known party, a chance to debate could have drastically improved his showing in the election, possibly allowing him to amass the number of votes required to earn Federal funding for his party (Levine 2219). For an article in Communication Research, Richard F. Carter and Keith R. Stamm performed a cognitive study of voters in reference to the 1992 Presidential campaign. Ross Perot confused and sometimes angered voters with his “out-and-back-in” run for office. At one point during the campaign, the word most associated with him was “rich,” followed closely by “quitter.” Following his participation in debates, he became, in the eyes of the public, a respectable third-party candidate; the word “quitter” had all but disappeared, being replaced by “businessman.” His ability to have his say allowed voters to see something real offered by someone outside of the political monopoly (389). Emerson’s Levine would not find this as a surprise, as he questions the current limitations on debating as being an infringement on First Amendment rights to free speech. He claims that the criteria set by the CPD “ [...] keeps these [belonging to third party candidates] views from becoming part of the national political agenda” (Levine 2225). Clearly Carter and Stamm’s research reinforces the arguments of Pfau and Levine; the information provided gives a clear example of how participating in debates empowers candidates who would otherwise go unnoticed by the general public.

Debates are of great importance to the electoral process. Consequently, regulations should be relaxed to give Americans more of a choice than just Republican or Democrat. Keeping third party candidates out of debates not only keeps them unknown to the public, but also deprives them of the right to free speech. Third party candidates are not the only ones upon whose free speech rights the current system infringes; by keeping Federal money out of the hands of minor candidates, the Federal Election Commission prohibits third party supporters from pledging their three dollar Federal Income Tax contribution, as their money does not go to the candidate of their choice.

Money is key in politics; whether this is a good thing is debatable, but the fact itself is without doubt. Having a strong financial backing permits a candidate to utilize television and radio advertisements to support himself or criticize his opponent. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is responsible for granting Federal funds to parties in each Presidential election year. In order to be eligible for this money, a party’s Presidential candidate in the previous election must have attained at least five percent of the popular vote. Republicans and Democrats have no problem securing this subsidy, adding to their already bulging wallets. Because third parties struggle to earn the coveted five per cent, inhibited in part by the inability to debate, they are usually incapable of acquiring Federal money, further halting their attempts to break the two party system.

Political Science Professor Josh Kaplan says there is “no question” that the FEC unfairly hinders the third party movement with its strict restrictions. The inability to succeed as a third party candidate is cyclical: without money it is hard to earn a spot in debates; without debating, it is hard to gain public support; without support, achieving five per cent of the popular vote is impossible; and without the five per cent, earning Federal money is but a dream. Michael McGrath, founder of the Election Reform Organization, suggests that minor parties would be forced to accumulate contributions of nearly $100 million to compete with the dominant parties, who each receive approximately that much from the FEC in any given Presidential election year. Here another cyclical problem presents itself; garnering that much financial support is unfeasible without the publicity that these candidates would earn via debates or money.

Money is crucial to anyone who wishes to make a serious run for President. So long as it is made impossible for third party candidates to compete financially with the two main parties, whose representatives comprise the FEC (which itself leads to a question of conflict of interest), they will continue to flounder in elections, keeping democracy in a diminished state. Only by making it easier for third parties to attain Federal support from money taken out of willing taxpayers’ annual payment can these parties stay afloat with the political conglomerates, offering voices to more voters.

Of course, there are a few serious arguments against expanding the rights of minor parties that should be discussed. History has shown that third parties aren’t always a solution to the problems of the current two-party system. Professor Kaplan makes an excellent point in regards to this. Giving the people another option is not always in the best interest of democracy; just ask Blacks who very well may have suffered longer under segregation had the 1968 American Independence Party candidacy of George Wallace been successful. As valid as this point is, it must be recalled that today’s parties tend to have broader platforms, and none are explicitly biased against any cultural group; large groups are likely to benefit more than suffer under newer policies.

Furthermore, the possible effects on the current electoral process might prove to create more confusion than correction. Kaplan explains that many, himself included, expected that a drastic change to the electoral process would come as the result of an astronomical problem spurring from the Electoral College. He argues that the fiasco in Florida in the 2000 presidential election should have been enough to provoke change, but has not yet done so; it is possible that even if no candidate, as a result of successful minor party campaigns, secured the required majority of electoral votes, discarding the Electoral College in favor of direct popular voting would not occur. Instead, various candidates would resort to alliances; throwing support behind another candidate could permit a candidate to have those issues concerning him addressed by the competitor he decides to support. Though this scenario is possible, it would seem that the demise of Electoral College would in fact still occur. Perhaps neither the Florida fiasco nor a hypothetical situation in which no candidate earned the majority of votes could alone motivate politicians and citizens to reform the electoral process, but an election with no majority winner compounded on the problems of the election in Florida could very likely open the eyes of those who still put faith in this antiquated system.

Having, at least to some extent, extinguished the flames of anxiety over the aforementioned arguments against the expansion of the existing political system, the essay must turn now to the most imperative concern at hand. Currently, a presidential candidate must, as mentioned earlier, garner five percent of the popular vote in an election in order for his party’s candidate to receive Federal funding in the next election. If this obstruction to democracy is removed, parties will be given a fighting chance. However, a question must be asked: Where is the line to be drawn?. Only so much money is allotted to fund candidacies (albeit, a fairly large sum), so obviously not every candidate running for the Presidency can receive a share of the pot. In any given year, parties ranging from the Natural Law party to the Communist Party USA support candidates. While perhaps a Reform, Green, or even Libertarian candidate may have a chance at success in an expanded system, it seems unlikely that some minor candidates are capable of receiving even one-tenth of one percent of the vote. Nevertheless, they do have their core supporters, who want their representative to be assisted equally; the same concern applies to debates. Allowing too many participants would defeat the purpose of the debate, in that allowing time for more candidates would decrease the number of important issue-concerned questions asked. Professor Kaplan suggests the possibility of lowering the percentage of popular votes needed to determine who receives money from the FEC; this may or may not be an effective solution. Similarly, debate organizers could relax their requirements on how well a candidate must fare in polls and primary elections in deciding to allow them to participate. Admittedly, these key concerns are not easy to address. The government and the parties will have to deal with these issues after it is determined how well any party or parties can succeed when given more equal footing with the two established parties.

The two party system that has dominated American politics for most of American history has become a corruption of democracy, turning voters with opinions opposite those shared by the dominant parties into “fringe voters.” Many voters are dissatisfied, some even feeling that, in the end, both the Republican and Democratic parties are merely two parts of one great political machine. Only by allowing voters the opportunity to choose from multiple parties who offer platforms differing from the mainstream parties and who are given a fair chance to compete can the government grant voters the ability to participate in a fuller democracy. The FEC needs to loosen requirements for parties who desire to receive Federal contributions, and should probably decrease the amounts given to the major parties. The FEC’s subcommittee, the Commission on Presidential Debates, also needs to reform its policies; debate requirements should be relaxed to extend the right to free speech to more candidates, which would in turn extend the right to free speech to more voters. The Founding Fathers believed in democracy; the Colonies fought to free themselves from a tyrannical monarch, but now the two dominant political parties act as something of a tyrant over other parties. Had James Madison been able to see how easily two factions were able to dominate other groups, he may have never wanted to leave British protection. Empowering third parties is the democratic thing to do, and should not be halted by the Republicans and Democrats who sit comfortably as they dominate American politics.