Will a third-party candidate make the cut for 3rd Congressional District debate? | KSL.com

[sarcasm mode]

It’s nice to see that excluding third-party candidates from “official” debates isn’t limited to presidential debate “commissions”.

[/sarcasm mode]

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Debate Commission announced Thursday that a debate has been scheduled Oct. 18 at BYU for candidates running to fill the 3rd Congressional District seat vacated by former Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

But just how many of the eight contenders on the November special election ballot will be allowed to take the stage will be determined by the results of polling already underway that are anticipated to be released mid-September.

The commission requires debate participants to meet a threshold of voter support in the poll of at least 10 percent, minus the margin of error, expected to be around plus or minus 4 percent.

Full story: Will a third-party candidate make the cut for 3rd Congressional District debate? | KSL.com

Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics

From RealClearPolitics, one of many articles on the recent court order from the lawsuit against the FEC and the CPD…

Except for 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been sued in every presidential cycle since it was formed in 1987. Those court challenges, usually centering on opening the process to more candidates, have never gotten anywhere — until now.

Those frustrated with the two-party domination of America’s election process finally have something to cheer about, thanks to a federal judge’s ruling against the Federal Election Commission. Reformers hope this decision could result in the next presidential debate stage being more crowded – and more independent – than it has been since the 1990s.

The pathway to get there, however, is not a straight one, and not all independent activists yearning to break the Democratic-Republican duopoly are certain that litigation is the best path.

But thanks to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the legal option is now in play. Her ruling states that by ignoring a complaint filed by Level the Playing Field, a nonprofit group trying to open up the presidential debates to a third-party candidate, the FEC has been active in ways that benefit the Republican and Democratic parties. (The plaintiffs in the case also include the Libertarian National Committee and the Green Party of the United States.)

Their complaint zeroes in on the presidential debate commission, alleging that the rules of the road adopted by the self-described nonpartisan organization eliminate any realistic possibility of allowing a third-party contender onto the debate stage. The lawsuit alleges that in so doing, the nonprofit debate sponsor has violated federal election laws; the suit asks for the FEC to intervene, a request that has so far been ignored.

Although neither the commission nor the FEC responded to a request for comment on the judge’s ruling, commission officials have long insisted that they are not trying to hinder viable candidates from participating in the process, but that it makes sense to afford a platform to presidential candidates with a realistic chance of being elected. The debate commission is neither congressionally mandated nor constitutionally protected, and some commissioners have pointed out that other organizations can sponsor debates if they choose.

But Level the Playing Field maintains that the 15 percent support threshold needed for participation under the commission’s rules effectively bars a third-party or independent candidate. The group’s legal complaint argues that an independent candidate would need to achieve a minimum of 60 percent national name recognition in order to hit the 15 percent polling marker. The plaintiffs contend that the commission rule is unfeasible in terms of time and money – a third-party candidate would have to rally massive support by the time the general election debates begin, no easy task since such candidates often don’t possess the finances and sheer manpower of their major party rivals.

It all comes down to the limited tools with which independents are forced to work. Independent candidates generally cannot get on the ballot for closed primaries. Additionally, they are allowed to accept no more than $5,200 from any individual donor for the two years leading up to the election, while their Republican and Democratic counterparts can receive up to $537,000 in “soft money” donations under FEC rules. Under these conditions, reaching the minimum support threshold is all but impossible.

Alexandra Shapiro, the New York-based lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit is specifically contesting the 15 percent rule.

“The ball is now in the FEC’s court,” Shapiro said, noting that the commission has been given 30 days as of Feb. 1 to reconsider or further explain its decision to dismiss LPF’s complaint. It has likewise been given 60 days to reconsider the petition for rulemaking to change the debate regulations as the plaintiffs have requested.

Their hope is that the lawsuit will ultimately require the FEC to enforce its own election laws on the CPD. The regulations would then be modified to “expressly prohibit using a polling threshold as the exclusive way to get into the debates,” said Shapiro.

The complaint also highlights another alleged sign of favoritism toward a two-party system. Key members of the commission have repeatedly donated to the Republican and Democratic national committees, and poured thousands of dollars into the respective parties’ presidential campaign coffers. These donations, the complaint argues, show that the CPD is violating its core tenet of nonpartisanship.

Shapiro also stressed the partisan backgrounds of founding chairmen Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, who are former heads of the DNC and RNC, respectively. She cited statements made at the group’s 1987 inception that it was bipartisan and would not look favorably on including third-party candidates in debates, as reported by The New York Times.

“The debates should be run by a group that is going to operate the process in a more nonpartisan manner,” Shapiro added. “If the rules were changed and there was a legitimate way to get a third-party candidate into the debates, we could see a whole new process in the 2020 presidential election.”

Just how that process may take shape could vary greatly. Level the Playing Field envisions choosing a third-party candidate from a signature-gathering competition or from a nationwide primary conducted exclusively online.

“The key here is that we have a broken political system,” says former under secretary of state James Glassman. “But how do you fix it? There’s talk of changing campaign financing, gerrymandering, but [LPF] has realized there’s one fairly small way to change it all: simply change the debate rules.”

Glassman, who worked in the George W. Bush administration and is now advising Peter Ackerman, the force behind Level the Playing Field, also asserts that it’s backwards to use polling to determine access to the political process. “No state uses polling as a way for people to gain access to anything on the ballot,” he said. “Whether it’s for the mayor, governor, or so on, it’s signature gathering.”

Another alternative floated by reformers is a nationwide online primary, a election process Glassman believes would “really capture the imagination of the American public.”

This method would also set a minimum threshold: “Maybe 2 million votes, 5 million – we would discuss with the commission on what would qualify,” Glassman said. “By having a national primary, we would be inviting all the states to participate, not just places like Iowa and New Hampshire. Everyone would have an equal vote.”

Even those who share Ackerman’s goals wonder if litigation is the most effective way of challenging the status quo. Terry Michael, the former senior media adviser for Libertarian Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign, believes that discussion, as opposed to a lawsuit, is the best way for alternative parties to move forward.

Michael said his advice for the Johnson campaign during the 2016 election was to not pursue the matter in the courts. Rather, he pushed for a discussion with the commission in the hopes that the organization would change its regulations in time for Johnson to make the general election debates. Michael said the CPD was “obstinate” in its defense of the 15 percent rule, but he wonders if the commissioners would have been more open to negotiation if they hadn’t been sued.

Michael, who served as the DNC’s press secretary when the commission was first established, also doubts whether the FEC has the jurisdiction to dictate conditions to the debate commission, which is not a government entity.

But the official stance of the Libertarian National Committee, another plaintiff in the case, is decidedly more optimistic. Nicholas Sarwark, chairman of the LNC, noted that the FEC has control over debate organizations through a federal statute; that statue requires debate sponsors to act in a nonpartisan manner. If the CPD is shown to be in violation but remains bipartisan, Sarwark said it would have to “report as a campaign organization and not take corporate funds,” thereby losing its status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Sarwark admits there is nothing inherently wrong with an organization wanting only Republicans and Democrats on their stage, but the debate sponsors must drop the nonpartisan label.

The Libertarian committee chairman is uninterested in talks with the CPD: “Our party’s stance is that you don’t really negotiate with terrorists. They stonewall us every time and are bound and determined to exclude us from their ‘campaign commercial.’”

Sarwark doesn’t believe the CPD would negotiate in good faith anyway, saying the commission members “weren’t interested in talking about meaningful change. If anything, it would be more along the lines of a delaying tactic to blow us off for the next few years. As a plaintiff, you shouldn’t bring a suit and then negotiate against yourself.”

As for the Libertarian Party’s path to the debate stage, it is focusing on traditional ballot access. If a candidate has sufficient access and a pathway to win the Electoral College, he or she should be allowed on the debate stage, Sarwark said.

And if there must be a polling standard in addition to ballot access, the Libertarian Party believes pollsters should reframe their line of questioning. For example, voters are typically asked, “Would you vote for this candidate if the election was held today?” Instead, Sarwark believes voters should be asked whether they would like to hear from multiple candidates at the debates. If polls were framed this way, the numbers would likely shift in third-party candidates’ favor.

The Green Party points to another obstacle: the difficulty in even getting its candidates on the ballot. “It’s an effort that takes so much time and money that it handicaps alternative party candidates,” said party spokesman Scott McLarty.

Les Francis, a former executive director of the DNC and deputy White House chief of staff under President Carter, tried to nudge the commission in an entirely different direction during the 2016 election.

“I tried, obviously without success, in the lead-up to the 2016 elections and through back channels, to offer an alternative to both LPF and the CPD, whereby there might be a ‘playoff’-type system, something similar to NCAA basketball,” Francis told RCP.

“In my scenario, some number of ‘independent’ or minor party candidates – their viability tested by polling both name recognition but also by more probing questions – would square off in debates either before or just after the nominating conventions. The top two or three finishers, according to an average in well-regarded national polls, would participate in the first debate with the major party nominees, and then if one or more hit a threshold of say, 10 percent, would go to the second debate. Another round of polling could determine the makeup of round three.”

Francis said these negotiations were not possible, however, as a negative campaign against the debate commission had already “poisoned the well regarding any further, productive conversations.”

There was, however, one aspect to the case all groups agreed on: No matter the pathway to get on the debate stage, a third-party candidate is a needed antidote after the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

“There is no better argument for including candidates like Jill Stein than from what we saw at the debates last year,” McLarty asserted.

James Glassman concurs. “When you get down to it, we have a broken system that is getting more broken by the minute. It’s because when we only have two parties, each one goes into its own corner,” he said. “You frequently end up with extremism, while the vast majority of Americans are in the middle. Even if the independent choice doesn’t win, that person would have a big impact on pulling the other candidates to the middle to create a more constructive election.”

Source: Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Longwood student petitions to allow third party candidates into debates

At Hofstra (host of the first sham debate), students used “#pride” as cover for excusing their university’s shameful betrayal of democracy. Good to see the students at Longwood doing what good students should do–question, and protest when necessary.

FARMVILLE, Va. (WSET ) — Some say third party candidates should be in both the presidential and vice presidential debates. And a Longwood University student is working to try and make that happen.

Next week, both Mike Pence and Tim Kaine are expected to take the stage inside Blackwell Hall for a debate. It’s the first vice presidential debate being hosted at the school.

Now, Political Science major Kyle Dobry is using his First Amendment rights to help make a last minute adjustment. He’s started a petition to try and convince the commission on political debates to add one more podium on the stage come October 4. “If the Libertarian party is not on stage, you are stifling voices,” said Dobry.

Averaging at 9% in the polls, Libertarian Gary Johnson and his running mate failed to qualify for the first presidential debate and the VP debate at Longwood; 15% is the cutoff. “That still around 13 million voters about the size of the population of the entire state of Pennsylvania. You really think the CPD would tell Pennsylvania your opinion does not count?” Dobry asked.

Dobry’s petition has gained some traction on campus, last week he collected more than 200 signatures in two hours.

 

Junior Connor Webber was one of them; he signed off on including a third candidate.

Webber says debates allow undecided voters, like himself, to see what candidates are really about. “Candidates react under pressure and to see their true colors and what they want to do,” he said.

That’s also why freshman Harper Ward supports the petition. “A lot of kids that I am friends with don’t really know a lot of the issues that are going on and the issues that are going to be discussed,” Ward said.

Despite a looming deadline, Dobry remains hopeful. “We are asking Longwood to be heroes for the 76% of Americans who want to see Johnson, Gov. Bill Weld, or even Dr. Jill Stein on stage,”

 

Gary Johnson will not be attending Monday night’s Presidential debate at Hofstra University, but he will be using social media to take part in the conversation.

Texas billionaire Ross Perot is the only third party candidate CPD has allowed into the debates since 1992.

Source: Longwood student petitions to allow third party candidates into debates | WSET

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Ron Nielson: Let Gary Johnson debate

An editorial in the LA Times by Johnson/Weld campaign manager Ron Nielson.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll asked likely voters the following question: “Do you think that Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, should be included in the presidential debates this year, or not?”

In response, 62% answered “yes.”

Given how unhappy voters are with the two major party candidates, that should come as no surprise. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are easily the two most unpopular presidential nominees the broken two-party system has ever put forward, and voters are increasingly frustrated and anxious to find a viable alternative.

For many, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is that alternative. Of course, I’m biased — I’m Johnson’s campaign manager. But consider that Johnson’s poll numbers are in the double digits in 42 states. The more voters hear from Johnson, the more they seem to like him. That’s why, as the Quinnipiac poll shows, nearly two-thirds of them want to see him share the stage with Trump and Clinton.

You’d think the Commission on Presidential Debates would pay attention. Instead, the CPD has decided that no candidate can participate in the debates unless he or she crosses a 15% average polling threshold. That’s highly problematic.

For starters, the CPD draws that average from five national polls conducted by traditional media outlets that often restrict themselves to head-to-head match-ups between Trump and Clinton. How is Johnson supposed to break through the 15% barrier when his name isn’t even an option?

It’s also worth asking whether these polls are entirely reliable, given that the polling industry is struggling to accommodate new communications technology. In years past, almost all polling was conducted by calling landlines, which have gone the way of the dinosaur. Pollsters are scrambling to incorporate cellphones into the mix, but even that approach ignores the fact that young people spend less time on the phone than they do online. Polls conducted online show more support for Johnson than polls conducted over the phone.

Incidentally, Johnson does particularly well among millennial voters, who are both more likely to be independent of a political party and less likely to own a landline.

Despite all these obstacles, Johnson’s support continues to grow. He has broken through the 15% ceiling in 15 states. In four states, he’s within four to six points of second place.

Besides, thanks to the electoral college, our national election is really a series of 50 state contests. A national poll is therefore essentially worthless when it comes to predicting the winner in November. The next president has to get to the magic number of 270 electoral votes, and Johnson is the only candidate, other than Trump and Clinton, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. That fact alone ought to convince the CPD to let Johnson debate.

There is also precedent to consider. In 1992, H. Ross Perot polled well through early summer when matched up against then-President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. After he temporarily dropped out of the race, his numbers plummeted, and by the time he got back in he was only at 7 to 9% in national polls. (That’s lower than Johnson by most accounts.) Nevertheless, he was invited to participate in the debates, and he went on to win 18.7% of the popular vote. If voters had not been given the opportunity to see him go head to head with the standard bearers of the obsolete two-party system, he would never have gone so far.

Shouldn’t Johnson get the same chance?

Americans want to make an informed choice, and the debates are the best opportunity they have to learn about those seeking the White House. Voters rightly believe that more information is always better than less — and so do political leaders. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Indiana Gov.Mitch Daniels, and newspapers including the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Herald and the Richmond Times-Dispatch have all called on the CPD to let Johnson and his running mate, Bill Weld, into the debates.

The CPD, a private tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, has the opportunity to do the right thing. If it’s going to use polls to decide who’s in and who’s out, perhaps it should give some weight to the 62% of Americans who want Johnson on that stage.

Ron Nielson is national manager of the Johnson-Weld campaign. 

Source: Let Gary Johnson debate – LA Times

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Smerconish: Open debates to Libertarians

CNN/Sirius XM Politics’s Michael Smerconish joins the growing number of calls for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld to be invited to the presidential debates–and encourages people to help boost their poll results if called by pollsters.

I agree with Smerconish’s notion that members of the public should do what they can to push the polls in the right direction–even if that means “supporting” Johnson/Weld just for polling purposes–but it is a shame that this silly game even needs to take place. Arbitrary polling percentages simply should not be used to determine debate inclusion.

OK, so Gary Johnson probably isn’t going to be the nation’s 45th president. And it’s doubtful Bill Weld will be replacing Vice President Biden. But the Libertarian candidates still deserve to stand on the debate stage and offer Americans their message of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. If the Commission on Presidential Debates evaluated candidate credentials and not poll standings, Johnson and Weld would have been the first to qualify. Neither the Republican nor Democratic ticket can match the executive governing experience of the Libertarian duo. In fact, we haven’t had a third-party ticket this qualified in modern history.

Johnson is a successful entrepreneur-turned-public servant. Sure, he’s quirky. It’s not every day an Iron Man who wears Nikes with his suit and smokes pot seeks the nation’s highest office. But consider that he was twice elected governor as a Republican in the very Democratic state of New Mexico. His record included elimination of the state deficit and creation of a surplus before leaving office, all while reducing the size of state government (a feat accomplished by vetoing 750 bills during his tenure, more than all 49 other governors combined). Plus, he governed without an ethical blemish, quite a credential when viewed against the competition.

Then there’s Weld. Central Casting could not have delivered anyone more suitable. Harvard undergraduate. Then Oxford. And Harvard Law. Weld was a U.S. attorney – recommended for that job by Rudy Giuliani – who went on to head the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. Like Johnson, Weld was elected twice as a Republican governor in a Democratic state. In fact, when reelected in Massachusetts in 1994, it was with the largest margin in state history.

There’s something else notable: They are truly running as a team. Watch them interviewed together and you will see their ability to finish each other’s sentences on matters of agreement, and willingness to amiably disagree. How refreshing.

Johnson and Weld, unlike the Green Party, will have their names on ballots in all 50 states. Their credentials make them worthy of standing on the presidential debate stage. But for that to happen, they need to quickly document support of at least 15 percent in an average of five national polls. So far, they have not met the threshold.

Still, there are signs of momentum, including the endorsement by a major daily newspaper, the Richmond Times-Dispatch. That embrace was a bona fide vote of confidence in Johnson and Weld, not just a rejection of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The editorial called Johnson “a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego, and sound ideas,” adding that “he is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency.”

Anecdotally it seems as if the largest impediment to their further ascension is the belief that they can’t win, and the idea that any vote for the ticket helps/hurts someone else. Weld rejected this argument in an interview when he secured the vice presidential nomination.

“I would never use the word spoiler – I’m very comfortable with where we are,” he told me. “We’re going to speak truth to power and we are going to speak truths and we don’t have to trim or modify our positions. And if we wind up nudging the Democrats toward the right on economic issues and nudging the Republicans to the left on social issues I think we will have done the country a really big favor.”

Jesse Ventura, who in 1998 was elected governor of Minnesota under the banner of the Reform Party, bristles at the argument that a vote for Johnson/Weld is a waste.

“It’s ridiculous,” he told me. “When you vote, you’re not there to pick a winner, you’re not there for a horse race. You’re there to pick the person you want most to be president. And if that person finished hypothetically fifth, so what? You did your job as a citizen to vote for a candidate of your choice.”

“When they come up with that nonsense about throwing your vote away, or electing someone else, that’s their patented Democratic and Republican excuse for losing,” Ventura added. “When they lose . . . they don’t assume the responsibility themselves. They point a finger at the third-party guy and say, ‘He’s who did it.’ How arrogant to think that everyone who votes for Gary would vote for one of them had Gary not been there.”

For those willing to listen, Johnson and Weld have offered a nuanced vision of independence and thoughtfulness. They refuse to campaign dirty and are willing to utter the dreaded C word: compromise. Which is another reason why they would add value to the debates. Putting Johnson and Weld on the stage would force their opponents to defend their views against independent thinking.

The Times-Dispatch endorsement said:

“But our final decision to endorse the Johnson/Weld ticket, and to do so with great confidence and enthusiasm, came only after Johnson met with the editorial board last Monday morning. We found him to be knowledgeable but unscripted, reasonable and good-humored, self-assured but free from arrogance, willing and able to address every question, consistent in his beliefs without being dogmatic, even-tempered, curious – and in all respects optimistically, realistically presidential.”

Admittedly, being “unscripted” has also hurt Johnson. Last week on MSNBC, he was flummoxed when asked his opinion on the Syrian refuge crisis in Aleppo. Whether that gaffe alone will prevent the Libertarians from reaching the debate threshold remains to be seen.

On Monday, both men will have the opportunity to make their case to the Inquirer Editorial Board.

In the meantime, if pollsters call your house tonight, tell them you’re for Johnson/Weld. You can always change your mind – after the debates.

Michael Smerconish can be heard from 9 a.m. to noon on SiriusXM’s POTUS Channel 124 and seen hosting “Smerconish” at 9 a.m. Saturdays on CNN.

Source: Smerconish: Open debates to Libertarians

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Release: Protest at Dominican University to push the Commission on Presidential Debates to LET JILL DEBATE

A press release from the Stein/Baraka campaign. As noted below, Dominican University has a history of excluding alternative voice from their political discourse and official debates.

Protest at Dominican University to push the Commission on Presidential Debates to LET JILL DEBATE

Join us to tell the Commission on Presidential Debates to LET JILL DEBATE!

We will be protesting the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) at the location of Dominican University because the University has partnered with CPD to host a program on Sept. 6th & 7th.
Dominican University’s & CPD’s program collegedebate16.org claims to be a “non-partisan initiative to empower young voters” to engage in the election and identify issues for the presidential debates. Meanwhile the CPD is actually a corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican National Committees and funded by big business donors, and acts to stifle real democracy by locking out independent candidates from the debates.

The college delegates for the CPD’s program should be informed about the CPD’s hypocrisy, corrupt history, and exclusionary practices.  The college delegates to the CPD are using #collegedebate16 as an identifying tag on social media platforms.  The delegates and their social media contact info is also listed at: http://collegedebate16.org/the_delegates/

The CPD sets arbitrary polling requirements to exclude candidates.  If Jill Stein were included in the debates the support for her in the polls could rise dramatically.  Already Jill Stein is polling over 15% among voters younger than 30.  The CPD is showing disregard to young voters by excluding Jill Stein from the debates.

On their collegedebate16.org website, Dominican University is identified as a “Voter Education Partner” for the CPD, yet Dominican University has refused to allow the Green Party to share voter education information on the campus and the University also has a history of locking the Green Party out of the political discourse.  In 2010, Dominican University held a debate with two of the candidates for Governor, and arrested the Green Party’s candidate Laura Wells to prevent her from entering the debate.

September 06, 2016 at 12:30pm – 3:30pm

Dominican University
(outside Angelico Hall)
50 Acacia Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
United States
Google map and directions

Greens of Northern California
415-425-3733

Source: Protest at Dominican University to push the Commission on Presidential Debates to LET JILL DEBATE

Reason: Growing Media Chorus Says Presidential Debates Are ‘Rigged’

From Reason.com…

Yesterday, for a second time, the Chicago Tribune editorialized in favor of letting Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson into the three presidential debates scheduled between Sept. 26 and Oct 19. “The hurdle in Johnson’s way,” the editorial board correctly observed, “is the terms set by the private, nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.”

Those terms, first announced last October and then further clarified two weeks ago, include averaging 15 percent in five pre-selected national polls as of “mid-September.” While the CPD’s five polls have heretofore been good to Johnson, averaging 10 percent compared to an overall national average of around 8.5 percent, it’s also true that the 15 percent threshold itself is an arbitrary creation of an organization created and staffed by the Democratic and Republican parties, and is so high that, if applied retroactively (the CPD was established in 1987 and began applying the 15 percent criteria in 2000), would have excluded every third-party candidate of the last 44 years with the exception of Ross Perot in 1992. “American voters would benefit from hearing [Johnson’s] views,” the Tribuneconcluded. “Let’s respect the wishes of a dissatisfied electorate and open up the first general election debate to Johnson. Once on that stage, it will be on him to make his mark.”

The World’s Greatest Newspaper is hardly alone in casting righteous aspersions in the general direction of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The L.A. Times editorializedthree weeks back that blocking Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein “would be a disservice to voters,” and contribute to the perception that “the debate system is rigged” by the participants: “Rules that limit participation to Democrats and Republicans, while excluding candidates who have a small-but-not-zero chance of winning might understandably be construed as self-dealing.” And the Charlotte Observer was even more blunt: “The election isn’t rigged, but the presidential debates seem to be.”

If it sounds like the CPD has a problem of basic democratic legitimacy, that’s because it does. Over at The Atlantic, Nora Kelly has a well-reported piece spelling out the contentious history of the commission, and concluding:

Third parties and their sympathizers have been arguing for years that this shut-out is deeply unfair. And in 2016, their points resonate more than usual. […]

When voters head to the polls in November, most will see Johnson’s and Stein’s names listed on their ballots. They can’t—and shouldn’t have to—hear from every candidate running for president; hundreds of varying degrees of seriousness have filed this cycle. But when an election creates exceptions to every campaign rule, it may be worth reviewing whether debates should have exceptions, too. […]

Perhaps no amount of justification […] will stop third parties from questioning the debates’ integrity. And […] they may have a point: The commission released its rules for debates in October 2015, well before the first primary contest. In the ensuing months, Trump has remade the GOP, dooming pre-primary favorites like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Senator Bernie Sanders’ backers were legion, and cut into Clinton’s support. In a norm-defying election year, perhaps the normal 15 percent threshold doesn’t work.

You can expect to hear both old parties and their hand-picked commission lament sadly in the coming weeks that rules are rules, etc. But no one died and made the CPD god of our political discourse, or of our scheduling of presidential debates. (This is one of many reasons why the decision by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to exclude Johnson from its Sept. 7 candidates’ forum is so galling.) If Democrats and Republicans insist on blocking out third-party candidates in a year when both of their nominees are historically unpopular and untrusted, and a Libertarian is polling higher at this stage than any third-party candidate since Ross Perot in 1992, then they are inviting Americans to confer upon them even less legitimacy and respect than we already do.

Source: Growing Media Chorus Says Presidential Debates Are ‘Rigged’ – Hit & Run : Reason.com

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Post and Courier: Debate Commission Should Include Johnson and Weld

From South Carolina’s Post and Courier…

Beyond Trump and Clinton

Last Sunday, a presidential nominee stated these general principles that he shares with his running mate:

■ “We’re going to always support taxes going lower. We’re going to always support being in business being easier. Rules and regulations not getting worse, getting better.”

■ “Being fiscally conservative, socially inclusive.”
■ “We’re really skeptical about intervening militarily to achieve regime change that I think has resulted in a less-safe world. So I think that we represent about 60 percent of Americans with that philosophical belief.”

No, those reasonable-sounding perspectives didn’t come from Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

They came from Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

Mr. Johnson also pointed out that he and running mate William Weld are “two former Republican governors re-elected in heavily Democrat states [Mr. Johnson in New Mexico, Mr. Weld in Massachusetts].”

Of course, the Libertarian ticket faces a political mission impossible against the major-party monopoly on the White House.

But when Mr. Johnson is included in polls, he’s been tracking up to 10 percent in national surveys and above 15 percent in some states. And Green Party nominee Jill Stein has been drawing from 4 to 6 percent.

So the Libertarian ticket retains a long-shot chance of meeting the unreasonably high 15 percent national poll-average minimum required by the Commission on Presidential Debates to be included in the three presidential and single vice presidential debates.

That would give each of those debates a third voice that many Americans would welcome, considering the remarkably elevated public “disapproval” numbers that polls have long been showing for both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.

The Libertarian nominees, if included in the debates, might even be able to shift the focus away from the tiresome trading of insults between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton and toward substantive discussion of policy issues.

That doesn’t mean most Americans buy the Libertarian Party’s specific pitches advanced as part of its “Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government” mantra.

And no, the Johnson-Weld ticket won’t win the election on Nov. 8.

But the debate commission should still include Mr. Johnson and Mr. Weld.

They could expand the ideological reach of those events — and maybe even elevate the tawdry tone of this down-and-dirty campaign season.

Source: Beyond Trump and Clinton – Post and Courier

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Green Party Candidates Urge Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to Widen Inclusion in Debates

,

An open letter to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from Green Party candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka

Dear Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton:

In the spirit of democracy, we are writing to ask that you support open debates in 2016 that include all of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who are on enough ballots to win at least 270 electoral college votes.

There will only be four campaigns on enough state ballots to win the election: your campaigns, the Libertarians, and our Green Party campaign. All candidates should be included in the series of Presidential debates, so that voters can be informed about all of their choices. We propose four open debates, three for the Presidential candidates and one for the Vice Presidential candidates.

The US electorate is changing rapidly and is no longer limited to Republicans and Democrats. The number of eligible voters who identify as Republican or Democratic has steadily dropped from approximately 80% in 1958 to 50% today. A majority of US voters do not identify with either of your parties.

Open debate is essential for confronting the urgent issues our nation faces. The US economy is not serving the people of the United States, most of whom are struggling to survive and cope with massive debt; never-ending wars are sapping the strength of our nation and creating chaos around the world; we are threatened by mass extinction, climate change, and toxic pollution; health care costs take up nearly 20% of our GDP yet tens of millions go without necessary care; and racially-biased policies like the war on drugs, mass incarceration and police abuse continue to plague our society. These are just some of the crises we face, and in order to find solutions, more voices are needed in the political dialogue.

The presidential debates are the most important events in our election process. They should provide voters with multiple opportunities to see all the candidates on the ballot across the country, representing the diversity of American political thought, discussing important issues in an unscripted manner so that the people can make informed decisions about the direction of our country.

It is public knowledge that the debates are now controlled by a corporation calling itself the Commission on Presidential Debates in order to sound like an official body, when actually it is controlled by your two parties. This corporation has not served the US voting public well. The debates are choreographed in a highly controlled way, depriving voters of the honest debate they deserve. There is no significant participation by the public, moderators are chosen by the candidates, questions are vetted, and unscripted back-and-forth between candidates is minimal. This controlled format prevents spontaneity and ensures that real issues and innovative solutions are kept out of the public dialogue. Open debates will strengthen our nation, no matter who is the next president.

As the de facto leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, you have the power to end this charade. You can stand with the people and be champions of open debates. We urge you to end the monopoly of the elitist corporation that prevents voters from hearing a full debate on the issues facing the nation. We urge you to demand four-way debates in 2016.

A foundational principle of our nation has been that a marketplace of ideas, where all views are discussed and the best ideas win out, is essential to our democracy. The country is crying out for real leadership. By standing with the majority of Americans who want open debates, you will show you are a friend of the transformation our democracy needs.

While only one of us will be elected to serve the nation, we will make great strides together in confronting our problems and defining new solutions if we come together in open debates.

Sincerely,

Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka

 

Source: Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka Urge Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to Widen Inclusion in Debates | Radio Free

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Kevin Zeese threatens ‘Occupy Debates’ Movement

We haven’t heard much else about this yet, but their intention to target media, sponsors, and candidates is pointed in the right direction. the CPD itself won’t listen, but those others–who have to live with the American public for the 4 years when the CPD goes into hiding–have a lot more reason to pay attention and do the right thing.

A former Green Party candidate and Occupy FCC activist is seeking to get third party candidates into the televised presidential debates and has called on the Republican and Democratic candidates to push for inclusion, suggesting there could be an “Occupy Debates” protest targeting media, sponsors and candidates if the criteria for participation are not changed.

The first of three presidential debates, organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, is scheduled for Sept. 26, 2016, at Hoffstra University in Hempstead, New York. The second will be Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis, and the third Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“The Campaign for Open Debates urges Republican candidate Donald Trump to follow the lead of President Ronald Reagan who in 1980 sought inclusion of third party candidate, John Anderson, in debates with President Jimmy Carter,” said Kevin Zeese, who is launching the campaign.

In an e-mail to journalists Monday (Aug. 22), Zeese took aim at the commission and its participation criterion of polling at least 15% to get a seat at the debates. “The Campaign for Open Debates will use a variety of tactics that target sponsors, venues, media outlets and the commission itself with protests, sit-ins, occupations and more,” said Zeese, who was involved in the Occupy Movement, including the Occupy FCC protest targeting FCC Chair Tom Wheeler and pushing for the Title II reclassification that eventually emerged.

Currently, the RealClear Politics Web site has Libertarian Gary Johnson polling at 8.9% in an average of seven national polls, compared to Hillary Clinton at 41.6% and Donald Trump at 37.1%. Green Party candidate Jill Stein has polled at as high as 6% nationally, according to Democracy Now.

He pointed out that GOP candidate Donald Trump had weighed in against the 15% participation cut-offwhen Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura was running for president in 2000.

At the time, Trump said the 15% cut-off seemed “very, very unfair.”

“Carter refused and Reagan and Anderson debated without him and with an empty chair for Carter on-stage. We hope that Mr. Trump demands inclusive debates and Secretary Clinton decides to join the open debates,” he said. “Both candidates can show they are in favor of real democracy by supporting open debates.

Source: Potential ‘Occupy Debates’ Movement Threatened | Multichannel

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

 

Load More

It's not democracy without open debates.