The other candidates, the other debate
Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) are among the third party presidential candidates debating tonight.
October 23rd, 2012
08:50 AM ET

The other candidates, the other debate

By Nova Safo, CNN

(CNN) – On Tuesday night presidential candidates will lock horns in a debate in Chicago. The participants are not Republican or Democrat. They're third party candidates.

At tonight's debate:  Jill Stein (Green Party), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) and Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), all of whom have received little attention during this election.

They're working to change that by pushing a message that focuses on issues that they believe are being ignored by Democrats and Republicans.

iReport: Why don’t you identify with either political party?

Third parties are setting themselves apart as the place for disaffected voters from both the left and the right, said Stephen Caliendo, a professor of political science at North Central College near Chicago:

[2:59] “In a multiparty system, you think of western democracies in Europe for instance, there will be smaller parties that represent very narrow slices. But in a two-party system, it has to be big tent, it has to be broad. So there aren’t a lot of people talking about some of the issues that aren’t as salient.”

The debate Tuesday night is the brainchild of Christina Tobin, president of Free And Equal, the organization sponsoring the debate.

Tobin will be moderating along with Larry King, who volunteered his time. She hopes the debate will expose voters to new perspectives:

[5:24] “This debate is going to be more of a discussion of unity across the spectrum of what do we have in common, uniting against the establishment. We may be on the left, we may be on the right, but gosh we’re all against the patriot act, the drug war.”

The debate begins tonight at 9:00 ET. Viewers can watch on C-SPAN or live-stream though Free And Equal,

Editor's Note: What do you want to hear from the third-party candidates? Listen to the complete story above and join the conversation below.

soundoff (93 Responses)
  1. Bane

    Why wasn't "The Rent is Too Damn High" party represented?

    October 23, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Report abuse |
  2. bribarian

    It's always be one of the corporate picks from repubs or dems

    October 23, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
  3. morleytr

    We need multiple parties badly in this country, and these candidates should get air time on par with the "dominant" parties. Unfortunately, though, even if a third party president did get elected, it would be useless. Adding parties has to start from the ground up – these parties need to gain a foothold in the legislature first to have an impact. If I could give advice to them, I would tell them to start local and build small...it will take a long time, but it's the only way to change the undemocratic, unrepresentative system we have now.

    October 23, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
  4. GJ2012

    I liked Gary Johnson 8 years ago and still like him today, hell get my vote and I hope one day taken seriously for POTUS

    October 23, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Report abuse |
  5. jvance

    It would be interesting to have a legitimate 3rd party that wasn't a limited issues organization. If the dems or GOP splintered off a hard-left or hard-right faction the remainder might become a "conservatively progressive" party. I'm guessing there are a lot of Americans in that category, some of whom probably don't vote because they are uncomfortable with the elements that control party agendas.
    Oh well, fat chance of that happening.

    October 23, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
  6. screenthis

    "Complete waste of time...none of these folks garner more than 1% of the vote. We should have all learned from 1992 election when Ross Perot ran 3rd party, that they cannot compete with the Democrats and Republicans."

    What an awful point of view posted here. Yes, let's just not even try to think for ourselves and simply fall in lock-step behind one of the two party candidates. Never mind that both parties have literally driven us towards a 'cliff' through complete intransigence on positions. We need more views and more options (not fewer). Now, if we could just get the voting public to Not simply follow along like sheep.

    October 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Mitt Romney

    We need a supreme court to put this country back where it started.
    You see, I am a Republican.
    I believe that we should have a dog eat-dog-society – only the strong shall survive and the weak shall perish. The resources of this world were created and meant for me to enjoy. I have no obligation to preserve anything for anyone else. We don't need no stinkin' socialist programs like Medicare and social security – things were just fine as they were when we had old people’s homes where the indigent were wards of the State. Free medical care? I say let those that didn’t work hard enough or succeed or simply unfortunate expire in the streets. Regulation on business and banks? None. Stuff your money in mattress if you don't like it. Let's return to those good old days when child labor laws didn't exist and hinder the free market and business could make employees live as indentured servants by making them indebted to the company like they once could. We need to return to segregation and even expand it to reserve the fruits and liberty for us folk. Women don't need rights; their right place is at home barefoot and pregnant under the guidance and of men. Only male property owners should have the right to vote because we need to return to the basics of the original constitution. We don't need any regulation on business; greed is good – every man for himself.
    Freedom I tell you, Freedom! I am Republican!

    October 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • screenthis

      Mitt, you're a Racist and Sexist? Who'd of thunk it. Now, please return when you can think issues through in a more 'level headed' fashion.

      October 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • longfisch

      President Obama, don't you have better things to do than troll CNN?

      October 23, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bhawk1

      Kinda shows what I said on a post before–The change from the Souther so- called Christians in the South suddenly accepting Mormons and Catholics as Christian which they would never do–unless this is the end time. But just shows no matter you are in some places the worst one can be is still black.

      October 23, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • FRED

      I think it's totally a job by this crazy guy. It's all bullshit!!!

      October 24, 2012 at 5:23 am | Report abuse |
  8. charlotte scot

    It is thrilling that voters will finally have an opportunity to view four Presidential candidates who are not named Obama and Romney. It appears that reporters have sold out to the candidate’s who've spent 500,000,000 on advertising. These are the only people they cover. The free press has become the not-very-cheap press. I can find no other explanation why, when you have a former Governor (Gary Johnson – libertarian)_ a former two term Mayor (Rocky Anderson), a former congressman (Virgil Goode) and a Doctor who has devoted a great deal of her life to trying to make this planet better the press discounts them as "fringe" candidates. In last night's Expanded Debate on Democracy Now! Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson represented my foreign policy views. Positions which cannot ever be taken by the corporate funded Democratic and Republican Parties. The R's and D's are bought and paid for, and nothing will change or improve in our country until we throw them out. They have devastated our economy, squandered our wealth, created senseless wars, ruined the once excellent education system, smashed our rights and liberties ... I could go on. The Republicans and Democrats are the spoiler. Third parties are the hope. It is shocking and disgusting that RT (Russian TV) and AlJazeera English will carry these debates but our own reporters stay away in droves. Watch Rocky and fall in love with the real deal:-)

    October 23, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Dan

    Everyone should ask the corporate media WHY they didn't invite these candidates and WHY they have never mentioned a single name throughout this entire election process. Corporations RUN America, shape and mold public opinion that's why>

    October 23, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
  10. jim

    UNINSTALLING OBAMA.....……………. █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete.

    October 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • v_mag

      "Uninstalling Obama" is the same as "Reinstalling Bush". No sane person wants that.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • souptwins

        People say this but I really don't see it. Romney is quite different than Bush and it's a lazy approach to this election if that's really what you're relying on.

        October 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
        • screenthis

          While true, the comment was a response to another that added virtually nothing. Posting 'Uninstalling Obama' actually misses the point completely. We need to uninstall both parties and find real solutions to our problems. Some of these 'third party' candidates offer better ways forward but will never have a chance because Obama and Romney are pre-ordained. Whoever posted the comment is very likely trapped in the 'two party' warfare that is a lose/lose path.

          October 23, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • Bhawk1

          Your right –Romey doesnt drink and avoided the military totally

          October 23, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kris

      If all you do is install Romney after uninstalling Obama, nothing changes, so why bother?

      Watch tonight's debate and choose a different path instead of remaining on the one that GWBush built and Obama repaved.

      October 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm | Report abuse |
  11. don

    Gary Johnson is actually a credible presidential candidate. This might be a good year to givce a libertarian a second look.

    October 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • KC Ted

      Another great reason to look at the Libertarian party this year, if Johnson gets 5%+ of the vote, the LP will be elevated to Major Party status. So next time around, there will be 3 major parties, offering Americans more choices.

      Remember, at one time the Republican Party was the upstart 3rd party. Sadly, since that time, both of the Big Two have almost merged on the truly critical issues (the issues never mentioned in debates). It's like one party with two factions.
      So, adding another party might not even be a third party, but more like two parties. The Big Two have traded places over and over with things only getting worse. They answer to the same big money power elite, so how can we expect anything different?
      Much like "heads they win, tails we lose".
      Johnson, 2012.

      October 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • longfisch

        That would be outstanding! I would like to see the Libertarian Party reach 5% just to see the legal wranglings the GOP and Dem parties will undoubtedly turn to trying to preserve their two party system.

        October 23, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Demetry More

    What the hell??? Where is Andre Barnett of the Reform Party USA? So you pull all the candidates that have debated Andre Barnett but not Andre Barnett himself? That is a bunch of crap. I hate to say it but CNN that is just Racist!

    October 23, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
  13. snakebite201

    Having this debate is a calculated political move by the media. Yes these candidates should be heard, but at the same volume as everyone else. The mainstream media has seen Obamas lead slipping. I call it the Ross Perot strategy.

    October 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Craig

      Great, thoughtful point, snakebite. And you can tell that's the case because this debate is being broadcast all over the media... Oh, wait, no it's not.

      Troll your Republican talking points somewhere else. As a moderate, I am sure tired of hearing the recycled "liberal media" line when it's corporate-controlled media that has the great majority of our attention, and they sure lean to the right.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Rick in L.A.

    Well, America, this is what you get when you don't have tens of millions of campaign dollars to buy TV ads, print & radio spots, etc. Maybe these other people aren't qualified to run the country, but none of 'em have private jets, either.

    October 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  15. hemchandra

    I am from NJ and I will be voting Jill Stein for the courage she has shown to have more robust democratic process than the two parties that are mainly working for the Wall Street. I reject that politics.

    October 23, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
  16. Bob

    Complete waste of time...none of these folks garner more than 1% of the vote. We should have all learned from 1992 election when Ross Perot ran 3rd party, that they cannot compete with the Democrats and Republicans.

    October 23, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Perot received 19,743,821 votes, which accounted for 18.91% of the popular vote. just a touch above 1%. Some recent polls have Gary Johnson coming in around 5%-6%. One poll has him getting 10% in Ohio.

      October 23, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Allah

      They can't compete because the Democrats and Republicans don't allow them too. Their members run the media and the debates, and choose to completely ignore them. Gary Johnson has a lot of support despite zero exposure and the "don't waste your vote" mentality your told once his name is mentioned.

      Even if you don't vote for them, they deserve exposure to propose new ways of looking at issues rather than the near-identical rhetoric the Repulicrats spew out.

      October 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • v_mag

      One of them will surely get my vote this year. A vote for a third party person is the only way I have to express my dissatisfaction with the presidential electoral process, and I will use it that way. Otherwise, I'm a sheep.

      October 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • JB

      But it's not a waste that you're still happy with your collar and leash from the republican or democratic parties? Amazingly more and more people are deciding they don't like playing fetch for one of the two corrupt parties. Is listening to another point of view that typically includes more specifics and actual policies a waste?

      October 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brad Lewis

      My right to vote for whom I want. Waste of time? Not for me.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      It's idiots like you that support this "lesser than two evil" nonsense and wonder why the country doesn't progress at all. What an ignorant comment! So no other voices should be heard? Only the Dems & Repubs? In 1992 Ross Perot ran a successful campaign due to the fact that old, ignorant and complacent people such as yourself haven't figured out that you don't have to be tied to an outdated two party system. Try reading the words of Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers regarding "Two Party" politics.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • JR

      Bob, its turds like you who blindly follow the repukes and democrips and tell others that THEY are wasting their vote by voting principle over party. I only wish ohter parties would be included in the crappy "pre-planned" debates. How can anyone with half a brain think that those town hall BS debates are real, the people asking the questions are reading off cards!! All the questions are screened and choosen prior to the "debate". People that will vote third party be proud of not falling for the BS of the Socialist Repub and Commie Demo parties.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
  17. JeffersonRepublican

    Gary Johnson is fiscally conservative and socially accepting. He could fit under the tent in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

    He's the only candidate on the ballot in enough states to win that advocates for a balanced budget. He won’t win but if he gets enough votes he’ll impact the type of nominees these two parties put forth and change the attitudes of congress and the president. Ross Perot pushed for a balanced budget in the early 1990s. Perot got 19% of the vote and what do you know – we soon had a balanced budget and a strong economy. So it’s not a wasted vote.

    October 23, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • InTheThirdPartyCloset

      If I knew that Gary Johnson had a chance at winning the general election, he'd have my vote because I believe in being fiscally conservative but socially liberal. It is possible to be both those things. Someone who tightens the spending whip, balances the budget but keeps social spending carefully in mind – and someone who doesn't put his personal beliefs before his civic duties; someone who pushes forth progressive, modern, liberal social issues like pro-choice, marriage equality, climate change acknowledgement and drug legalization/regulation. Someone who wouldn't jump into any ol' war, but has what it takes to know when war is inevitable.

      For now, until our third parties gain more popular ground, as long as corporations are "people" and run the show, I'm a lesser-evil voter.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • v_mag

        If all the folks like you would vote the way you feel, rather than according to who you think has a chance of winning, we would have viable parties other than [R] and [D]. Try it once and see.

        October 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • JeffersonRepublican

        Please come out of the closet. The two big parties will pay attention and change when they see their votes siphoned away.

        October 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • MRHD

        Even if you live in a battleground state, your one vote is not going to decide this election. No state's electoral votes have ever hinged on a single vote. Why not vote your conscience? And if you are NOT in a battleground state then there is absolutely no reason to NOT vote for the person whose policies you most closely align with, because sadly your vote absolutely won't matter, regardless of who you vote for.

        October 23, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • longfisch

        The big two thank you for your undying support, you wonder why you have to pick between the "lesser of two evils"? Why would they change if you are not willing to change, the "lesser of two evil's" vote is a confirmation that you are still a gullible person that can be walked on with no repercussions. At least you are willing to admit it, I will give you that credit.

        October 23, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Demetry More

      Andre Barnett also pushes for a balanced budget. He is also the only candidate with a comprehensive plan to get us there. He also is not afraid to lay out the steps. The rest of these guys are still talking in big swooping open ended statements. He also is the only candidate with real foreign experience and has a strong siut of national security.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • YetiUSMC

        And he is NOT on enough states ballots to be competitive for winning the presidency. Your argument has no basis. If you are going by the write in option, not all states allow write in candidates, still no basis.

        October 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mockingbird

          He' on the ballot in 47 states. According to The Politco:

          The party is involved in litigation to get him on the ballot in the three remaining states, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where a judge ruled last week that Johnson could not appear on the ballot because he also ran as a Republican in the state’s February presidential primary.

          Johnson is already on the ballot in two more states than the 2008 Libertarian nominee Bob Barr.

          October 23, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
        • longfisch

          YetiUSMC, thank you for your service, but I have to ask, why argue against facts? The Libertarian party has secured enough states (47) to easily win enough electoral votes, I am not saying he will, just the indisputable fact that they have far and above what is needed to win the election mathematically

          October 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Steven Petersen

    Al Jazeera will be broadcasting this debate live tonight on LinkTV. This satellite channel is 375 on Direct TV and 9415 on Dish TV. There will also be another "3rd Party Candidates" debate on Oct 30, on Link TV. If you haven't been watching DemocracyNow some of these candidates have been appearing on that program, and they are so much more attuned to issues that affect us citizens than either of the other puppets the corporate media presents as the only valid candidates, and that is heartening.

    October 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
  19. v_mag

    This points up one of a fairly long list of problems with presidential election. The big one is money, of course, and who has the right to anonymously buy presidential elections. Another is the anti-democratic electoral college that renders voters in 40 states meaningless. It makes the will of the voters meaningless, too, while turning the election into a non-binding referendum. It is in the Constitution, but we changed other mistakes in the Constitution, like woman suffrage and election of senators by state legislatures. We can surely get direct election of president and vice president. A further problem is the debate commission that has a strangle hold on who gets to speak and the format of debates, which this article points out. The so-called 2-party system is a roadblock to progress. The primary system, which gives inordinate power to several small states is also at fault for giving us bad choices, like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. No wonder fewer and fewer people vote.

    October 23, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • sparkelusive

      Direct election (or election by popular vote) would be very dangerous for America. It would give Population centers such as NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.. ALL the voting power rendering most all states useless and voiceless. The electoral college certainly needs to be reconstructed to truly represent the american people...but by saying that the votes from 40 states in meaningless is not true at all...its just that those states overwelmingly have the same views throughout the state. If those views were to change the election outcome would change.

      The point of the electoral college is to provide states with a smaller population to still have a say in the election, without the electoral college the 5 most populious states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL) would single handedly decide our president every year as their combined population accounts for over a third of our entire population.

      October 23, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • v_mag

        It should not be the STATES who elect the president. It should be the people. There is no worse miscarriage of democracy and justice than what happened in 2000, when the people chose Gore, and the electoral college (with a lot of help from the Extreme Court) chose Bush. That could happen again this year, and if Obama loses the popular vote, in my opinion, he should lose the election. Then the people have at least had their say.

        If the states should choose the president, as you say, then the states chose the wrong president in 2000, which led to 8 years of tragedy for this country.

        October 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
        • sparkelusive

          Firstly, If you think Gore would have been a better president than Bush I think you are very mistaken. Bush may have sucked but he doesn't claim to have invented the internet or blame poor debate performances on the altitude.. Gore is a complete nut.

          It is important for the states to elect the president because each state has its own issues that need to be addressed at the federal level. Most of the things currently done by the federal government should be done at the state level. It is important to TX to vote in a president that will fullfil the federal duty of protecting the border... it is a federal issue that a state has a huge stake in. If people were purely elected by popular vote, the minority would have no voice at all and would become a submissive class to the majority...it has been shown throughout history time and time again even within the US's history in regards to slavery and women's rights. People in the middle states would have no voice when it comes to agriculture because they would be completely overshadowed by the voice of the cities which don't really care about farming no matter how much it may effect their lives.

          I completely think that the electoral college needs to be designed, but history has shown time and time again that pure democracy does not work, hence our representative democracy.

          October 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mockingbird

          But we're the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. We are not a democracy and never have been.

          October 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
        • Owl96

          So what happens when a president is then elected by 80 votes. There would need to be a recount in every precinct in every state.

          October 23, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • v_mag

        I don't think there's a single rational argument for the electoral college that holds water. It is clearly anti-democratic and paternalistic. It allows manipulation of the election by Republican and Democratic party leaders. It blocks 3rd parties from winning any electoral votes, which is basically how the USSR used to run elections. It allows the candidates to attend solely to the concerns of a few states rather than to the people of the entire country. It becomes a non-binding referendum rather than a true election. There is no justification in this day and age for this antiquated and undemocratic notion.

        October 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
        • Owl96

          There is one argument, and it is the only argument that you need. It is in the Constitution.

          October 23, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • v_mag

        Direct election of the president is hardly "pure democracy". It is simply one person, one vote. The president is still an elected official who represents the country. "Pure democracy" would be if we all voted on every issue.

        Comparing Gore's misstatement about the Internet to the record of Bush, including torture, war crimes, lying about WMD, crashing the economy, no-bid contracts to insiders, top-to-bottom corruption, 2 unnecessary wars, failure to prevent 9/11, and a million other blunders and crimes is really ludicrous. There is absolutely no doubt that Bush was the worst choice ever.

        We already have a mechanism for representing minorities and local concerns. It's called the House of Representatives, and the diversity of House members proves that. We also have a way to represent the interests of states, and it is called the Senate, where each state has an equal number of votes as each other state. What we need is a way to represent the will of the people of the country as a whole (and I don't mean "corporate people"), and that should be, but is not, the presidency.

        October 23, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • sparkelusive

          Just because Bush was a horrible president doesn't mean Gore would have been better. Half of the points you brought up can hardly be blaimed on bush. WMDs were thought to be in Iraq based on our IC, and bush used their information to make a decision, much as Obama used their information to make a decision about bin laden. Both of those wars were declared by congress and had much support from the american public at the time. 9/11 was well underway by the time bush took office and he would have only been able to stop it had he been provided the proper information by the IC. I have yet to see any credible information on the fact that he had operable intelligence to stop any major attack.

          I like how you didn't address the fact that he associated debate performance with altitude because he actually believes that. His statment about the internet also proves that he probably has little understanding of the cyber domain which is rapidly becoming the most formidable domain for our military to operate in and therefore would have been a completely ineffective president in this domain since he clearly doesn't understand it.

          October 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Rob

    "The participants are not Republican or Democrat. They're third party candidates." Great article I feel all dirty and used just considering to vote "third party."

    October 23, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • v_mag

      Speaking of feeling dirty, how does it feel having Number 1 or Number 2 splattered all over you?

      October 23, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rob

        Now that's funny...disgusting, but funny

        October 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kris

        That was funny!

        October 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
  21. NocommentCNN

    Vote Gary Johnson for your freedom !

    October 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • v_mag

      I live in Texas, so a vote for Obama or Romney is meaningless, given that Romney has no chance of losing in Texas. My only meaningful choice is a third party, and I will vote for one of these guys. Probably Johnson, since I'm not sure any of the others made it on the ballot.

      If you don't live in a so-called swing state (i.e., a state where votes really count), why not exercise your right to protest and vote third party?

      October 23, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mockingbird

        I agree. I live in Georgia and it's going for Romney. By voiting Libertarian, I can take advantage of the 2-party monoply without influencing the Electoral College. I LOVE the EC!

        October 23, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Ellen

    It's disgusting that CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc aren't giving equal weight to these candidates as well. TELEVISE THEIR DEBATE! Allow America to see all of the options available to them on election day.

    October 23, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • ET

      My former Governor Jesse Ventura (like him or hate him) once said the way for an independent to win a race was to sweep in late to an undecided contest and don't give them time to slam you. Well put.

      October 23, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • InTheThirdPartyCloset

        The only way this would work for Johnson, or any third party candidate for that matter, is to have a quick, sudden injection of huge amounts of campaign funding to flood the nation with ads, like...now. Maybe a Facebook and Twitter campaign. Something, to get to as many disenchanted voters as possible who want the economy fixed but still care deeply about social issues.

        October 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
  23. Randall "texrat" Arnold

    I'm glad that this is getting at least SOME attention. CNN should do more than post this article though: they should broadcast as well.

    October 23, 2012 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
  24. 1984

    again the major media outlets will not show this perspective on American Government. Again they are being controlled by the 2 rival gangs , the Republicans and the Democrats. What a shame it is, that these large media outlets who say they serve the public will not show this. Its shows how cowardly they are. they all should be a shame of themselves.

    October 23, 2012 at 11:54 am | Report abuse |
    • random house party

      Or more accurately, the same people who control the media also control the two main parties.

      October 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
  25. Art Delgado

    Rather than another night of post-debate punditry and more blather, CNN should broadcast this debate live.

    October 23, 2012 at 11:54 am | Report abuse |
  26. Rick McDaniel

    Even seeing the debate will be difficult, if it is only going to be on C span.

    October 23, 2012 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
  27. Sergio D. Monterroso

    I read all their platforms, all support the same issues that make me not want to vote for the President and/or Governor Romney.

    October 23, 2012 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
  28. Dan Szematowicz - CNN

    Hi all. C-SPAN has just picked it up so you can watch it there. Also, the sponsoring organization – Free and Equal – will be streaming it live. Thanks for the feedback and comments!

    October 23, 2012 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
  29. sparkelusive

    It's sad with Al Jazeera is more involved in democracy and our politics than our own MSM organizations...Frankly I'm surprised that this is even on CNN and I applaud them for including it.

    October 23, 2012 at 11:14 am | Report abuse |
  30. Obamabus

    After googling, I learned it will be televised via youtube. One is Ora & the other is...believe it or not...Al Jazeera. No major US network is broadcasting this but Al Jazeera is. SMDH

    October 23, 2012 at 11:07 am | Report abuse |
  31. fundies

    i like tacos.

    October 23, 2012 at 10:49 am | Report abuse |
  32. Eric McLaughlin

    Why don't you actually post how/where/what time we can tune in to hear?

    October 23, 2012 at 10:43 am | Report abuse |
    • fundies

      Listen to the audio.

      October 23, 2012 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      "The debate begins tonight at 9:00 ET. Viewers can watch on C-SPAN or live-stream though Free And Equal,". Right there at the end of the article. What more information do you need???

      October 23, 2012 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
      • ET

        I think that last paragraph was added after my comment (the first one posted). In either case I'll be watching..

        October 23, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
  33. ET

    Is this going to be televised live? I would be interested. My three topics: Energy, energy, energy....

    October 23, 2012 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |