Get enough support?
That's a joke.
Ross Perot was denied access (the second time) and he had, "enough support."
Third parties aren't allowed because the 2 main parties do not want the competition.
A small, not very well known party, which doesn't have the funds to advertise nationwide and is generally supported in a grass roots manner or a a party with implicit government subsidy, that is very well known and has the funds to advertise on every major tv, radio and internet source in America?
It's not arrogant, it's a statement of fact.
The major parties are more likely to have superficial members, because they already have a large base.
That doesn't even take into account that many voters are already superficial voters.
The fact that Ross Perot, "had enough support" (your standard, not mine) but was denied access, gives credence, that political shenanigans has more to do with the presidential election system, than "whining" and "playing the victim."
I do not believe in private control of the public system of elections.
They have a cartel on the presidential debates.
It's not free market.
If our people are so stupid and worthless, allowing us access to the debates, would be of no consequence.
I mean, being stupid and all, our rear ends would surely be whooped.