If a country not in favour of the US or even the UK used tactics to discourage people from voting for other parties, that country would be accused of being undemocratic by the Super Powers. However, the two main parties in the US use the wasted vote scare to bully or guilt trip voters into voting only for the two main parties. Furthermore, the other parties get virtually no chance to air their views and that is a reason I voted for Ms Stein. At the second presidential debate, she bravely attempted to go into the hall where the debate was taking place in order to participate in the debate. She was refused entry and when she insisted, she was arrested. If a country like China or Iran had done such an act to someone wanting to air their views, the US and UK would be the first to condemn such an action. 

My question is: Why aren't all presidential candiates allowed to participate in the debates? Surely, they're entitled to say how they would run the country if elected even if there is no chance of them doing so. Is someone afraid that one of the candidates might say something the American electorate might like? That would be a calamity, wouldn't it? 

While the United Kingdom isn't any better than the US, I will have to give credit where due in one respect. On the BBC, there is a weekly programme called 'Question Time' where politicians, journalists and others sit on a panel and answer questions from members of the public. On one programme, British National Party (a far right wing party) leader Nick Griffin was on the panel. He was given his chance to air his views on the programme and when he did, the British people got to hear how out of touch he was. He came across as ridiculous and his being on Question Time did the BNP more harm than good because people got to see their true colours. The same can be applied to presendential debates. Sure, some candidates may have some outlandish views, but isn't it the democratic thing to do to let the voters hear these views for themselves and make up their own minds? 

Another argument used to dissuade third party voting is to say that the policies of these parties are actually those held be Democrats. The Democratic Party claims that voting for a third party is stealing votes away from them and allowing the Republicans to win because anyone who votes for these parties would automatically vote Democrat if they weren't in existance. This is not true , many who vote for third parties would not vote at all. Furthermore, there have been times when a credible candidate not of the main parties was on the ballot, there were people who voted for that candidate. That was why the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler governor in the 90s. For presidential elections, many of those who voted for George Wallace in 1968, voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988 and then for Ross Perot in 1992. None of them won, but I didn't hear anyone calling votes for any of them wasted.

When I vote for a third party, I am saying that I don't like either the two main party candidates and choosing someone who I thought is better. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, so this wasn't the first time. I know he was Green Party too, but there are other reasons why I vote Green and because I don't want to be an advert for them here, won't go there. I think that's the reason why others vote for these parties and like me don't consider their vote wasted. Still, I think the democratic thing to do would be to give all the candidates a podium at the presidential debates so they can speak for themselves otherwise, we are in danger of actually becoming a one party state pretending to be a two party one.