The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't a government entity - it's a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Its decisions aren't bound by the First Amendment.

removing that option dooms us to a 2 party system forever.

...and both exlcluded all but major candidates unless there was independent candidate showing significant popular support.

our system is set up for a two party system. I am a Democrat. The Democratic party is the only vehicle for progressive policy. Those who don't vote for Democrats are essentially voting for Republicans...whether they vote Green, Libertarian or stay home. I am pleased that traitor Stein lost. Green spoiler is what she is.

you looked into the electoral results of countries that have such a system? It is not a good system.

I hear it every day in forums across the internet, or around the water cooler at work.

They think that somehow, 'free speech' should exist between individuals, between you and your employer, between businesses and their customers..

It's just.. disheartening.

We need an online civic class, and everyone who passes it gets a $500 gross income deduction on their taxes.

Maybe that would make people understand the powers of the government, the division of the branches of the government, and the roles each plays.

At least her fatigue didn't keep her from affirming practices long established by the need of people to be exposed to candidates who might go on to become elected. Very un-ideal, but many maybe voters only see one or two major national debates, and that's it.

would be what we think of as Independents now. Idealistic of course, and national dynamics have never made that a real possibility.

In any case, requiring candidates to belong to one of two parties would be outrageous. I'd probably reject membership in both on the spot myself. Any independent or third party presidential candidate who gets enough support to genuinely challenge the two main party candidates should be admitted in the debates, and probably always will -- because of quite right widespread disapproval and backlash closing him or her out could cause -- but that's of course very rare.

participate in these debates under any circumstance.

the national presidential debates, which is intrinsically very corrupt. Neither allowing some independents to join private events nor excluding them can be right. I am a long-time Democrat, but I strongly oppose the collusion by both parties to eliminate independent debates sponsored by neutral organizations.

The League of Women Voters solicited my membership recently, but they didn't promise to somehow reinstitute their debates, so I tossed it, regretfully in view of what we've lost.

Otherwise there would a couple of hundred crackpot candidates showing up for each debate.

No thanks.

It was a great ruling.

Not going to happen without a decent candidate though. Libertarians got to 11% in one of the polls with Gary Johnson. If they could get someone with some charisma they'd have a shot at getting on stage.

have been affected...and I would argue the country. Stein helped give us Trump...screw her.

Stein is irrelevant. She gets extremely little support and doesn't get anywhere close to the numbers the Greens need.

Nader in Florida. I am against screwing with third parties because in our system, they simply won't work. And having looked at countries that this sort of system...it seems they live under minority rule...often conservative minority rule for years. I fail to see how it is beneficial.