You've probably felt it. That specific, nagging frustration when you turn on a televised presidential debate and realize you’re watching a choreographed production rather than a raw exchange of ideas. It's usually just two people. They stand behind podiums, trade rehearsed zingers, and carefully avoid answering the actual questions. But there is a different way things happen. The free and equal presidential debate model basically blows up that entire script by inviting every candidate who is on enough ballots to theoretically win the election. It sounds radical, right? In a country that prides itself on "the marketplace of ideas," the reality is that the marketplace has been gated for decades.
The Free & Equal Elections Foundation, founded by Christina Tobin in 2008, isn't just some fringe group. They’re a non-partisan organization that believes the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)—the folks who usually run the big show—is essentially a private duopoly. By keeping the stage limited to candidates polling at 15%, the CPD ensures that third-party and independent voices remain invisible. Free and Equal changes that math. They use different formats, like the cumulative voting system or the "Mensa" style of questioning, to actually get into the weeds of policy. It’s messy. It’s long. It’s honest.
The 15% Barrier and Why it Actually Matters
The 15% polling threshold is the invisible wall of American politics. Think about the circular logic here for a second. A candidate can't get into the debate because they aren't polling at 15%, but they can't get to 15% because nobody knows who they are since they aren't in the debates. It's a closed loop.
Breaking the Duopoly
Most people don't realize that the CPD was created by the Democratic and Republican parties themselves back in 1987. Before that, the League of Women Voters ran things. The League actually quit in 1988, calling the parties' demands "fraudulent" and an "effort to hoodwink the American public." That's a heavy charge. When you look at a free and equal presidential debate, you see what the League was trying to protect. You see Libertarians, Greens, Constitution Party members, and Independents all arguing with the same clock and the same microphone.
How the Free and Equal Format Actually Works
It’s not just about who is on stage; it’s about how they talk. In the standard debates, it's all about the "30-second rebuttal." That's not a conversation. That's a soundbite contest. Free and Equal often uses a "roundtable" or "open forum" style.
In the 2024 cycle, for instance, we saw candidates like Chase Oliver, Jill Stein, and Randall Terry actually engaging in deep dives on the National Debt and Civil Liberties—topics that often get glossed over in the "Mainstream" events. They often use a format where candidates can ask each other questions directly. No filters. No moderators protecting a specific narrative. It’s basically the "Wild West" of political discourse, but in a way that feels surprisingly civil because everyone there knows they are fighting against the same exclusionary system.
📖 Related: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
The Role of Alternative Voting Methods
One of the coolest—and honestly, most overlooked—parts of these debates is the push for better voting tech. Free and Equal often partners with groups to demonstrate Ranked Choice Voting or Approval Voting during the event.
- Ranked Choice: You pick your favorites in order (1, 2, 3). If your #1 loses, your vote goes to your #2.
- Approval Voting: You just check "yes" for everyone you'd be okay with. The person with the most "yes" votes wins.
These systems take the "spoiler effect" fear and throw it out the window. If you've ever heard someone say, "I'd vote for the third-party guy, but I don't want to waste my vote," these debates are designed to show you that the "waste" is a byproduct of the system, not the candidate.
Why Do People Still Ignore These Debates?
Money and media. That’s the short answer.
The major networks have a symbiotic relationship with the two major parties. They want the high-stakes, "Heavyweight Championship" vibe of a one-on-one fight. A stage with six or seven people is harder to produce. It's harder to sell ads for. But more importantly, the gatekeepers of the 15% rule are often the same people who fund the polls that determine that percentage. It's a very tight-knit circle.
However, the internet is changing the game. In 2012, Larry King moderated a Free and Equal debate that was live-streamed to millions. By 2020 and 2024, the reach expanded because people are tired of the "Red vs. Blue" team sports mentality. They want actual answers.
👉 See also: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
Real World Impact: From Perot to Today
Ross Perot is the cautionary tale the major parties never forgot. In 1992, he was allowed on the debate stage. He was quirky, he had charts, and he talked about the "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the country. He ended up getting nearly 19% of the popular vote.
The parties' reaction? They tightened the rules. They made it almost impossible for another Perot to happen.
By following the free and equal presidential debate movement, you're essentially watching a slow-motion rebellion against those 1992 rules. When you see a candidate like Gary Johnson or Jo Jorgensen getting ignored by the CPD but embraced by Free and Equal, you're seeing the "underground" of American democracy. It's where the ideas that will be mainstream in ten years are usually born.
Misconceptions About "Equal" Time
A big myth is that giving everyone time is "confusing" for voters. Critics say, "How am I supposed to keep track of eight people?"
Honestly, that's kind of insulting to the average voter's intelligence. We manage to track dozens of characters in a Netflix series or hundreds of players in a fantasy football league. We can handle more than two political platforms. The "confusion" argument is usually just a cover for maintaining the status quo.
✨ Don't miss: 39 Carl St and Kevin Lau: What Actually Happened at the Cole Valley Property
Another misconception is that these candidates are "unserious." While some definitely have niche platforms, many are former governors, doctors, and highly successful entrepreneurs who simply don't fit into the narrow boxes of the GOP or the DNC.
The Future of Open Debates
We are heading toward a tipping point. With more voters identifying as Independent than as either Democrat or Republican, the demand for a free and equal presidential debate is at an all-time high. People are moving away from cable news and toward long-form podcasts and independent streams.
In this new environment, the 15% rule looks more like a relic of the 20th century than a functional part of a modern republic. The infrastructure is already there. The platforms are ready. The only thing missing is the collective realization that we don't have to watch the "official" debates if they aren't actually serving us.
Actionable Steps for the Informed Voter
If you're tired of the two-party circus, don't just complain on social media. There are actual things you can do to support a more open system.
- Watch the Alternative Streams: Next time there's a "major" debate, look for the Free and Equal broadcast. Sometimes they run it on the same night or the day after. Your view counts as data.
- Support Ballot Access: Each state has different rules. Some states make it incredibly hard for anyone but the "Big Two" to even get on the ballot. Support organizations like FairVote or the Free & Equal Elections Foundation that fight these legal battles.
- Research "Minor" Candidates Early: Don't wait until October. By the time the general election rolls around, the narrative is already set. Check out sites like ISideWith to see which candidates actually align with your values, regardless of their party label.
- Demand Open Rules: Write to your state's representatives. Ask them why your tax dollars are used to run primary elections for private parties that then exclude other taxpayers from the debate stage.
The "free and equal" movement isn't just about a single night on television. It's a fundamental argument about who owns the government. If the debates are controlled by the parties, the parties own the government. If the debates are open to anyone the people have put on the ballot, then the people might actually stand a chance of getting their voices heard again. It's about as simple—and as complicated—as that.