Oh, criminy!! Start by answering the questions. Should the guy expecting 0.001% of the vote be allowed on-stage with the other debaters? Yes or No! Hunh? Hunh? Until you answer simple questions like that your comments are just garbled ad hominems.
Maybe I can save a round of rejoinders. Jason will argue that he knows the LP won't win in 2024, but with "fairness" they MIGHT get 10% of the vote in 2028 and in 2032 the U.S.A. will be gifted with a genius President who has no idea what we'll be using for money, but shutters the FedRes Banks on Inauguration Day!
But there's a flaw in your plan to throw the U.S. into chaos in 2033. Some intelligent observers worry that if Trump wins in 2024, the U.S. will not have any more free elections.
Anyone who is on enough state ballots so that those states sum at least 270 electoral college votes should be on the debate stage, which is anathema to someone who endorses the duopoly the way you do. Your reductio ad absurdum of 0.001% of the vote just shows that you do indeed support the duopoly.
Now, the "left" news sources say if Trump gets elected that would be the end of our democracy. The "right" news sources say that if Biden gets re-elected that would be the end of our democracy. I think that the country has wandered into banana republic territory years ago. The titanic is sinking and you are venting your spleen, stomach, bladder, and bowels about who should be captain.
That I point out that there are more forms of cheating than the one you listed angers you. That I point out you only oppose cheating that impacts you directly enrages you. But you don't refute them because you can't refute them.