According to CNN, Gary Johnson is currently polling at 13%. A candidate needs to average 15% to be included in the debates. I hope he makes it, but I think it's a shame that the two major parties have made it extremely difficult for independent and third party candidates to get noticed and on the ballot.
Third parties and independent candidates have little or no chance of winning. All they can do is take a few votes away from one of the major party candidates.
They have little or no chance of winning because the system is designed to only support the Republican and Democratic parties. They have passed laws and rules that make it difficult for other candidates to get on the ballot and to participate in national debates.
Every four years, my friend Mike Dolas' "Dual Ballot" scheme resurfaces. Everyone gets two ballots. First they vote with their Head -- Republican or Democrat. Then they vote with their Heart from a list of all candidates who qualify by getting a million signatures. If the top person on the Heart ballot gets more votes than either one on the Head ballot, he/she is elected. If he/she gets more votes than the loser on the Head ballot, then he/she goes on the Head ballot at the next election.
This is exactly the mentality that leads to the major parties nominating people like Clinton and Trump. If most people put up with crappy candidates like those, why should their parties feel pressured to offer better?
Clinton was pre-ordained, the Democrats rigged the system so there was almost no conceivable way that she could lose. Trump, however, received the highest number of primary votes of any Republican candidate, ever. The people spoke, they want Trump, and the fact that so many crybabies in the GOP are in a hissy fit about it is the exact reason for his appeal. People are tired of being told what's good for them, much in the way that Democrat voters were told that this year.
Even if Johnson won't win I think it would be good to have him in the debates. Choice is good and alternative viewpoints help to clarify opinions, even if they don't change votes.
Didn't Trump get less than 50% of the vote? A plurality is a valid way of winning, but the majority did not have him as their first choice. I don't know how the Democratic system was rigged. It remained the same as before when Clinton lost, but some people are big on conspiracy theories.
The problem goes beyond a mere negative thought process. Let's say, in some reality, a third party candidate wins. Then what? Congress won't follow suit. A libertarian president stacked against a non-libertarian congress would likely not accomplish much. The former would be elected on the promise of trimming fat while the latter relies on that fat for survival. Our system isn't really built for it. We don't have a proportional legislature. And the electoral college system skews things further. We're a two party state. That's terrible. That only gives us the appearance of freedom compared to a one party state. And it isn't going to change. We can accept that power will just bounce back and forth or we can move. Bringing about the constitutional reforms that would actually make this a more democratic nation is an uphill battle that would require much more work than simply winning a presidential election.