No, they would not be free. You’re saying that parties should be enslaved to the interests of everybody else. Parties would effectively play no role in the political process.

I disagree. I think the problem is due to a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you treat someone as marginal, you will marginalize them, and they will end up marginal. In addition to better ballot access, minor parties need media access. For instance, the Corporation for Presidential Debates was formed and is run by people with connections in the major parties. It’s not remotely independent or unbiased. Consequently, minor candidates get excluded from debates.

I’m all for inclusion of candidates in debates, however I’ve seen many elections (thought not Presidential ones) where Independent, Libertarian, Green, Etc. candidates get included in debates and given equal access to questions. They still lose and by a large margin. This suggests to me that the people who run and become involved in these 3rd party efforts are actually not very good at politics. Or you might say they are, “marginal people.” with limited bases of support.

“But you’re basically arguing for the abolition of all political parties at this point if everybody can participate than it’s stupid to even have them.”

Well, while I recognize the natural instinct to form collectives, I wouldn’t mind seeing the demise of party politics. Even if everyone participates, though, parties still serve a purpose. They associate candidates with platforms (though that association gets weaker every election cycle). Parties would still be free to associate in the sense that they would be free to accept or reject candidates.

“The Major Parties control things because no one has come up with a minor party that enough people will support.”

I disagree. I think the problem is due to a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you treat someone as marginal, you will marginalize them, and they will end up marginal. In addition to better ballot access, minor parties need media access. For instance, the Corporation for Presidential Debates was formed and is run by people with connections in the major parties. It’s not remotely independent or unbiased. Consequently, minor candidates get excluded from debates.

Another problem is the winner-take-all voting system we have. We need something better, like range voting.

“The Libertarian Party is on the ballot in most places and in Idaho, it’s as easy to file as a Libertarian or Constitution Party Candidate as it as a Republican.”

Good for Idaho. Would that more states followed suit.

The Major Parties control things because no one has come up with a minor party that enough people will support. The Libertarian Party is on the ballot in most places and in Idaho, it’s as easy to file as a Libertarian or Constitution Party Candidate as it as a Republican.

What you’re actually advocating is the stealth abolition of political parties. If you want to abolish political parties, fine, push for that. Nebraksa elects its entire State legislature on a non-partisan basis, many cities do the same with mayor and city council candidates. However, as long as we have primaries and parties they ought to eb respected by the right of free association.

I don’t expect the GOP or DNC to prop anyone up. Who suggested that? My political stances are not represented well by either powerhouse party. Should I be implicitly disenfranchised?

Easing ballot access is not enough. Debate access must be eased, and debates must be arranged by independent entities (like the League of Women Voters). The current CPD is essentially run by the GOP and DNC.