Democracy Now Asks Third Party Candidates Questions From Last Night's Debate 257
As they did with the first debate, Democracy Now has published the debate questions answered by third party candidates. Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice) were present. There's a (long) video with the answers spliced in, and (thankfully) a transcript of all their answers. Gary Johnson was not present, but you can catch him debating Jill Stein Thursday October 18th at 7 p.m. EDT.
Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (the other parties are noted in the opening paragraph)
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Mittens respects neither freedom nor responsibility.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is a conservative. Conservatism has three pillars:
1. Economic conservatism (low taxes and free markets)
2. Social conservatism (public religion, opposition to abortion)
3. National defense conservatism (high defense spending)
Libertarians only agree with Mitt on #1.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative: Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Romney is a NEO-conservative. Republicans support almost none of this.
1. A libertarian would never impose a state religion, state funding for or special tax breaks for religious institutions.
2. He would most likely support some spending for defense, but he would not waste the money on useless 'police actions' that lack congressional oversight.
3. he would also not hesitate to declare war to defend ourselves but he would do it by the book (as a congressman or senator).
4. A libertarian would not impose restrictions on healthcare for ideological reasons (such as abortion) but would also oppose state funding for it.
5. he would demand heavy restrictions on self-instancing of state power.
6. he would defend our constitutional rights, even if their use makes insecure control freaks butthurt.
Re: (Score:3)
"special tax breaks for religious institutions"
So libertarians are opposed to the constitution? The constitution doesn't allow congress to make laws that affect religion because any such law would bar extreme religious practices (the reason most early settlers came here) like those of the puritans. Therefore, congress lacks the authority to tax churches or stop underage drinking in churches.
This pisses the IRS off to no end and they ignore their lack of authority over churches and make statutes regarding th
Re: (Score:3)
1. Economic conservatism (low taxes and free markets) [wikipedia.org] ...
Honestly, what the fuck?
Hi, Libertarians, reality is over this way. [slashdot.org]
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Mitt Romney is the crony capitalist candidate. So is Barack Obama. Two parties, one agenda.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.
don't know about you, but for me, that's a total and complete show-stopper. keep your religion to yourself. do what you want with your family and church, but it HAS to stay out of public laws.
given a choice, I cannot accept even any hint of an american taliban.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Interesting)
yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.
Perhaps, if you take what Romney says at face value. But that would be silly. Romney says whatever it takes to get elected, and he's banking on the evangelical vote. Judge him by his record, and he's pretty much the same as Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
But Romney would be beholden to that wing of the party for future votes and for money for his re-election. So you can be sure he'd give them what they want if he could at all swing it. Better be safe and not have the religious extremists control the presidency.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
You could say the same about Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party. Failing to implement a single progressive policy hasn't seemed to hurt his support.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously? What about:
1. Obamacare (the road to socialized medicine)
2. End of Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military?
3. Cutting oil production (I am directly impacted on this one living in the Gulf area).
4. Expansion (massive) of Federal Entitlement Programs
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Never even tried to bring single payer to the table as he promised he would. Obamacare is literally less progressive than Nixon's health care plan. Was Nixon a progressive?
2) Great, now a small fraction of a small fraction of people can put their lives on the line to protect oil company profits.
3) What exactly is progressive about cutting oil production? Cutting oil consumption would be progressive, but he hasn't done that.
4) Medicare, medicaid, etc have been increasing exponentially. But they've been increasing exponentially for decades. And hell, Bush passed Medicare part D. Was he progressive?
Sorry, the one progressive policy you singled out amounts to nothing but crumbs for a tiny fraction of the populace. Get real. Obama is a center right president.
Re: (Score:3)
4. Expansion (massive) of Federal Entitlement Programs
Uh... yeah, no.
The Federal Entitlements have seen record increases in people on them, but that's not because they were expanded, or the rules were loosened at all. There are more people on welfare, because the economy sucks.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure Romney understands Romney's platform.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care for the abortion stance, etc, either....however, I don't really see that kind of social change that they could make really if Mitt is president.
I do however, fear for our economy and our foreign policies, etc....if Obama is re-elected, especially if he's no longer burdened with needing to get re-elected
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
I truly see Obama re-elected as a threat to the US
What exactly is the threat to America that Obama's reelection presents? We've had 4 years of Obama in charge, and I'm curious to know what evil you think he can do in, say, 2015, that he can't do right now.
(For the record, I'm voting for Stein this year because I prefer her foreign policy)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see -- in order of liklihood:
1) 4 more years of ideological stubbornness, resulting in even further gridlock (no legislation) or shitty bills (partisan legislation w/ bribes).
2) Continued failure to kickstart the economy through terrible stimulus ideas (with the added "bonus" of adding to the debt) or business-crippling legislation (like Obamacare), potentially pushing us into a second recession
3) 4 more years with no real Soci
Re: (Score:3)
with Romney...I think his fiscal ideas might help, or at least won't be as hurtful as O's....
If I may ask you -- what fiscal ideas would those be? I think even a Romney's supporter would have to admit that he hasn't actually given many details about his fiscal plan
So far what we have is
1. Reduce taxes by 20%
2. Increase military spending (beyond what they are asking, apparently)
3. Cut some exemptions/loopholes to compensate the lost benefits, but he hasn't named any
3.a. He doesn't want to raise capital gains tax (as it is fair)
3.b. I believe he wants to repeal estate tax
3.c. He wants to repea
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep your army within your borders. That would be a pretty fucking good foreign policy.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote whatever third party you desire, or abstain. Voting for either major party is immoral.
Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (Score:4, Funny)
I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.
I thought that the Libertarian candidate was so anti-government, that he wasn't even running for government.
Re: (Score:2)
With a few exceptions, most of the Libertarians I've known have been anarchists, with a nod to maybe having a court system- but that could be privatized too. So yes, they most definitely have a problem with a government.
I'd also point out that any government as small and powerless as the libertarians want would be useless, hamstrung, and by no means functioning. But I'll avoid the argument as libertarianism is more of a religion than a political party, they just won't listen if it doesn't fit their world
Re: (Score:3)
[Most people] just won't listen if it doesn't fit their worldview.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between anarchy and a w
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, some Libertarians take things too far. So do other people in the other ideological swamps. Nothing new.
For me with the Libertarians it's their wide open border stance. They honestly think that would work. It's mind boggling.
It's all just bullshit anyway. The power structure uses these ideologies like the Pied Piper used his music. Obama, Romney, all of them. They don't really care. They don't have to.
FFS, (just to pick one example) Obama has let slip more than any politician I can recall in years that
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Mitt nor Obama have any concept of a Libertarian.
Heck, the average republican or dem have no concept of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the politicians know exactly what Libertarianism is. If playing that tune got them votes, they'd play it, loud and proud.
Stop thinking these guys are ignorant. That makes them happy. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Please say you're joking. Seeing Romney as Libertarian puts you to the Left of, well, the whole planet. ;-)
And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Will no gentleman stand forward to represent the people on the slavery issue?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will no gentleman stand forward to represent the people on the slavery issue?!?
Gentlemen? Jill Stein is no gentleman, she was arrested last night for trespassing at the debate.
She's getting my vote, and I didn't even RTFA. Obama will win in a landslide here in Illinois, so a vote for either him or Romney is wasted here. Rather than wasting my vote, I intend to vote for a candidate who doesn't want to put my friends and family in prison for pot. I choose her over the Libertarian, because the Libertarians stupidly think you can have a clean environment without environmental regulations, and I'm old enough to know what it was like before the EPA (So does Ron Paul, which makes me think he's either an idiot or in bed with the polluters).
As to the slavery issue... which one?
Re: (Score:3)
A Libertarian would support the ability of people to sue for pollution (even air pollution). They would also support the more practical way of controlling those externalities by taxing it. Because a Libertarian (as opposed to an anarchist) does believe in a government, which requires taxes, and something must be taxed.
So cap-n-trade is a far better solution to all pollution than current regulations. Wipe the current ones clear and tax each pollution at certain rates. If that means putting a cap to creat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States) [wikipedia.org]
While I suspect you are joking, I will play it straight.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly nobody from the Whig party will. It was an inability to take stand on slavery that caused the Whig party's dissolution and replacement by the Republican party.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "the people" you mean people in favor of slavery, then some Republicans have you covered:
State Rep. Loy Mauch (R-Bismarck)
In two letters, Mauch wrote about the Bible and slavery. The Arkansas Times quotes from a letter Mauch wrote in 2009:
"If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?"
State Rep. Jon Hubbard (R-Jonesboro)
“But I think the end result -- that they [African-Americans] did get to live in America, although the means for getting here were terrible -- I think the end result was better than it would have been if they had to live in Africa themselves.”
Tip of the hat to Keef of the K-Chronicles ( http://www.kchronicles.com/ [kchronicles.com] ) for these and to the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ [huffingtonpost.com] for the quotations and background.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery [wikipedia.org]
I'd be quite ecstatic to see someone in real power step up and address this.
Yes, I know what you were actually going for with your post.
A good step, but not that effective... (Score:4, Interesting)
The unfortunate part of these 3rd party debates is that people who are wanting to consider a third party candidate have probably already made up their mind, and probably already know the answers to the the questions that are going to be asked of their candidate. Gary Johnson not apearing is irrelevant when pretty much any of his followers know how he would answer them anyway.
I'm not saying these debates are bad, and I'm already planning on voting 3rd party (so it's not a wasted vote argument,) I just think we need more messages targeted at people who DON'T already know the 3rd parties and candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, only people who already support them will watch or read. They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how does that work?
Why were they not included in (the) other debates?
Re:A good step, but not that effective... (Score:4, Informative)
Because the Commision on Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrats and Republicans.
Re:A good step, but not that effective... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They've made up a few excuses, such as you need X% in a major poll where X is always > whatever they've been polled at.
Re:A good step, but not that effective... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.
When third party candidates are given a chance to participate, their support usually goes down. The reason is that they are a bunch of ideologues, and don't have good answers to real world issues. There was a debate a while back here in California, and the Libertarian candidate spent most of his time talking about the "ferret ban". He felt that the state impinging on his right to import invasive species was more important than jobs, the state's debt, or any other issue that actually matters to the voters
Re: (Score:3)
Because most of the people in 3rd parties aren't practical, they're philosophers. They have a point of view and anything that doesn't 100% conform to it is wrong. Pushing that point of view is more important than any other problem that may be looming, and solutions to all problems will be looked at in terms of that philosophy and how the solution can push it.
Philosophers make horrible politicians. They're usually unable to compromise, dogmatic, and tend to scare off the middle ground voters. They're val
Re: (Score:3)
Practical people realize that the two party system is here for a while in the US. They evaluate the two, and choose whichever is closer (dems for green, reps for libertarians). Then they try to change the party from the inside, bowing to party demands on less important issues in order to use political capital on big ones. These people actually get things done.
And how much have these people actually "gotten done"? How much has the Democratic party been moved closer to the Green position of late? Did I miss Obama stumping for Single Payer healthcare? A maximum wage law? Windfall profits taxes on oil companies? Arresting and prosecuting the bankers responsible for the financial meltdown?
On the other side, how much has the GOP been moved in a more Libertarian direction? Is Mitt Romney calling for an end to the War on Drugs? Closing down foreign military bases? El
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, only people who already support them will watch or read. They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.
Tragic or not, it's more or less mathematically dictated in a first past the post voting system. Read Wikipedia (and its references) for a technical explanation, but I've found these videos [cgpgrey.com] by C. G. P. Grey to be excellent for educating people from all sorts of backgrounds.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of these things is to draw attention to the fact that the CPD excludes many candidates from the "official" debates. It may be futile, but shouting "HEY WE'RE HERE!" is about all we can really do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you're libertarian or green, I'll listen to your arguments about policy changes we should make with an open mind even though I don't identify with those positions usually. If you're trying to pitch why you should get elected, but seem unable to grasp the realities of the election process as they are in this country, however, I real
Fine but not quite the same ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you missed the whole point.
Or maybe I wanted to only comment on a different point, the problem one has if they compare Obama and Romney's responses to the 3rd party candidate responses.
The exclusion of third party candidates and various other points do not need to be brought up in every post do they?
Re: (Score:2)
True. It is also worth explaining that the Democracy Now extended-town-meeting had to be scheduled for the next day -- instead of being "nearly live" -- because the Green Party's Jill Stein got herself arrested while trying to enter the actual debate.
The first extended-presidential-debate was very interesting, and was "nearly live". However, it also had the disparity that Obama and Romn
Third party candidates have the benefit ... (Score:2)
Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.
Not that it really matters. We all know that none of the third party candidates will come close to getting even 5% of the votes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... (Score:5, Informative)
Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.
You don't seem to understand just how badly this debate process has been subverted. From Democracy NOW! [democracynow.org]:
"The town hall debate we’re going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.
Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates—the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.
In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that’s why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.
And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone." -- George Farrah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.
It's a goddamn circus, and an obvious one at that. anyone who can't see the forest for the trees in this situation, is probably one of the clowns.
Dishonesty NOW! (Score:3)
The Commission rules for this debate did not include this prohibition. The Romney and Obama campaigns agreed to it, but -- and this was pretty heavily covered all over the media
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Jill Stein didn't know the questions beforehand, because she spent the night shackled to a chair in a warehouse.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/green_partys_jill_stein_cheri_honkala [democracynow.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Republicrats could have solved that by simply inviting the parties on enough ballots to win to their debate.
The real truth comes out (Score:2)
United States calls it self a democracy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Change comes, but slowly and in a stable way. And that is a good thing. Multiparty systems can go screw themselves.
There, I've poked the sacred cow. Flame away, Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of the electoral college, that DOES make the democracy thing a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Real debates" were started by the two parties that allowed in and they have provisions that others would be under other circumstances. Thought that was quite sporting of them.
Third party candidates need to have level playing field with the big leaguers to appear viable to be able to get some real traction in the first place. Something like 1,5% support should be enough to have you included but because the big debates are controlled by the majority parties its rigged at 15% meaning the majority parties effectively shut down the competition by controlling the rules.
The other parties are more than welcome to start their own debates and choose to include or exclude the two larger parties.
1. They are trying but because, you know, they are lacking the big players they cant get enough attention in the firs
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you are getting at. Anyone can have any sort of debate they want. you can't force the front runners to attend it though..
Appearantly you didn't read the message. I wasnt advocating forcing the big players attend small game debates but actually let other real candidates in the big debates in order to show their viability against the front runners to get some real traction(by winning the debate) to give the front runners a run for their money.
the problem with 3rd party presidental candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.
Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.
If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.
This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed
Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (Score:5, Insightful)
The greens are starting at the bottom. There have been 136 green party members elected to local office, 3 elected to state offices (all no longer serving), and 0 elected to federal offices.
Participation in the presidential election builds name recognition and motivation for the party, improving their chances at lower offices even if the presidency is hopeless.
Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (Score:4, Informative)
Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.
Gary Johnson was already governor of New Mexico for two terms.
Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.
Maybe that would be a good thing. Gary Johnson vetoed more bills in his 2 terms as governor than all other governors combined. We don't need tens of thousands of pages of new laws every year.
If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.
The Libertarian Party has done exactly that: http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials [lp.org]
This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed
No, it doesn't mean that at all. In Michigan, if the top of the ticket gets 5% or more, then they get major party status, which means they don't need to waste money trying to get on the ballot the next time around. It helps to build momentum in that you're not wasting money, time & energy on something you had to do previously.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, and he got there as a Republican, not with the LP.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid questions (Score:5, Insightful)
I watched this debate, and none of the questions were even worth answering. Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one mention of science. Not one question addressed the regulatory capture of just about every government agency. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis. Absolutely no worthwhile questions were asked, and no worthwhile answers were given.
Re: (Score:2)
And stupid answers, even by the so-called fringe candidates.
"End illegal immigration!"
"Fuck Wall Street"
Lots of good discourse there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should take a hint from Pizza Hut. Crowd source a bounty for any individual in a town hall debate that asks why third party candidates aren't allowed in debates. Pizza Hut was offering $15K for anyone who asked "pepperoni or sausage" during the Town Hall debate. I bet the internet could beat that for a question of real importance.
Re:Stupid questions (Score:4, Insightful)
We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.
Legal and financial actions account for most of the evil that is done in this world.
Re: (Score:3)
I think what I would really like to see in a political debate is some of the rules I've seen implemented in couples communications classes. One of them that you mentioned is putting words in the mouth of the other person. Another good one is interrupting or making fun of the other person's opinion. I'd like to see a debate format where the rules require 100% civility and any violations means you lose time in which to respond to the next question, or maybing all questions from that point on. So say each cand
This sux (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When Poppa Bush lost to Clinton because of Perot being the election, the rules were changed. At that point, the republicans pushed through rules that pretty much prevented 3rd parties.
What are you babbling about? I just got my mail in ballot and there's 16 choices in the presidential election section. And the top one is some guy from a party I've never even heard of. It's getting like the cereal section of the supermarket. All I want is basic no-nonsense wheat flakes and there's all this sugary crap in over-produced packaging.
Gary Johnson (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think they say why. Maybe he was busy.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, these debates are a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Has any organization made any effort in taking back the presidential debates or even just having an alternate nationally televised live debate? I realize that at first it wouldn't be as popular as the current debates since the republican and democrat candidates would probably simply refuse to participate but if it was promoted enough it eventually might become popular enough that they would be forced to participate or be severely hurt in their campaign.
Also, the debate questions need to be tougher. I have s
Re: (Score:2)
Has any organization made any effort in taking back the presidential debates or even just having an alternate nationally televised live debate? I realize that at first it wouldn't be as popular as the current debates since the republican and democrat candidates would probably simply refuse to participate but if it was promoted enough it eventually might become popular enough that they would be forced to participate or be severely hurt in their campaign.
IIRC, First election after that, the league actually did host a debate, but neither dems nor pubs showed up (that would be Clinton vs. Dole). More importantly, NONE of the networks televised it. With that being the time when us nerds were the only ones on the net, it was a none-starter. Now, with the net developed enough, it MIGHT be the way to go.
Personally, I am hoping that when rootstrikers amends the constitution, they will also push to bring back such debates.
Also, the debate questions need to be tougher. I have said this earlier but the debates should happen at least three times a week for a month. I could even see the candidates choosing their cabinets early and having them as part of the debates. Any good leader should surround themselves with smart, capable people.
Oh yeah. Those questions sound like they
Good use of technology (Score:2)
I watched the first mashup presidential debate on DemocracyNow and it was excellent, they would cut from the official debate to Stein and Anderson also behind podiums and keep it rolling. With the official rules preventing Obama and Romney from interacting with each other [gawker.com] there really isn't a need for them to be in the same room.
Yes there is. (Score:3)
Yes there is. In most states all parties that get at least 5% of the vote in most states get the consolation prize of being recognized as major parties, and don't have to jump through ridiculous hoops to get their local candidates on ballot for the next 4 years.