The Commission on Presidential Debates

[Rvaughn]

I wonder what forum members know about and think of the Commission on Presidential Debates? The Commission on Presidential Debates describes itself as "nonpartisan, non-profit". On the other hand Wikipedia (though not necessarily the most reliable source) says it is "a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties," as well as that it is "headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former [Democratic] White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry." That doesn't sound all that "non-partisan" to me!

I've never paid too much attention until this year, following some of the debate flap regarding Gary Johnson & William Weld, the Libertarian candidates. The Libertarian ticket has made it on the ballot IN ALL 50 states, and is polling fairly well (according to whom you ask). Yet the Commission on Presidential Debates seems determined to shut them out. They say debate participants must be "Constitutionally eligible...must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations..." This last part seems to be where the rub comes in. In the article Conflict of Interest: Debate Commission’s ‘Nonpartisan’ Poll Actually Run by Top Party Consultants, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan writes, "The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) claims that it uses “nonpartisan criteria” to select participants for the presidential debates. However, publicly available information shows that one of the polls used to determine participants, the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, is run by Democratic and Republican pollsters." He further claims, "Nonpartisan voters are systematically under-sampled. And, importantly, the documentation provided by NBC shows that Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies made no effort to use statistical means to correct for the under-representation of independents."

I know many (possibly most) people seem to be satisfied with a two-party system, but a look from many angles seems to suggest that the system is rigged to always favor the two parties. I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

Totally unrelated (well, not totally), I saw a political cartoon last night that described our choices as "the evil of two lessers."

[Tim Bonney]

I have mixed feelings about letting in third party candidates into the debate if they don't seem to have a realistic chance of winning the electorate majority in any state. If a third party can stand on its own then I'm all for it. I don't think two choices is enough, even though I'm happy with Hillary's candidacy. There have been times when I wasn't thrilled with either choice. I do not believe our two party system serves democracy well at times.

[KeithE]

It is a shame that we as a nation can't have more options. In this election we have a xenophobic, narscisistic, fraudster and serial liar vs. a warmonger and corporate friendly career politician.

Gary Johnson has demonstrated a lack of knowledge and somewhat flippant/smartalecky attitude.

Jill Stein is not reaching people partly due to media neglect.

If more parties were allowed (like most countries) we might have a viable choice in say Bernie Sanders or Johnn Kasich. But no we are stuck with two lousy choices because of fixtures such as this commission. We are also left 2 warring parties in gridlock which means continued corporate control of govt for their purposes.

[Rvaughn]

I also don't think the two-party system serves us well, and it is clear that to some degree the two parties are in cahoots to be sure they are the only ones in power.

I understand that every dog and pony show that can get on the ballot in a state or two doesn't need to be in the debates. But shutting parties out of the debates is an effective way of being sure they don't have a realistic chance of winning. I can well imagine why Trump and Clinton don't want Johnson or Jill Stein in the debates -- right now each has an ugly looking alternative and wouldn't want folks to think there might be some other more pleasing alternative.

Interestingly, the Green Party is on the ballots of 45 states and is qualified for write-in ballot in three other states. That's 48 for them and 50 for the Libertarian Party. These two parties receiving this kind of ballot access surely represents some of the very high voter discontent this year. (I don't think they normally achieve near that kind of access.) When polled on just the fact of whether the Libertarian and Green parties should be allowed in the presidential debates a high percentage of Democrats and Republicans, and the majority of Independents, support Gary Johnson's and Jill Stein’s presence in the debates.

Whether these get in the presidential debates or not, I think there is good reason to question the supposed non-partisan nature of the Commission on Presidential Debates. So my feeling are not as mixed about letting in third party candidates into the debate as they are about whether the Commission on Presidential Debates is a rigged system that flies under the radar of "non-partisan".

[Tim Bonney]

[Jim]

[Lou]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

You can't blame the choice of the two major party candidates on anything but the system that they have in place for selecting them. The Republicans go with their "states can do whatever they please" system, in which some proportion delegates out by the vote, some are winner take all, and many of those are states where the winner won far less than 50% of the total vote. The Democrats have a much better system, except for the "superdelegate" system, though Sanders would not have secured the nomination even if there hadn't been superdelegates. Party loyalty has become strong, largely because people are too lazy and stupid to think for themselves, and to do any kind of research into the facts in order to find out about the candidates the are voting for. It's only taken thirty years for the religious right to completely abandon and discredit everything they ever stood for, including core political principles, to support the candidate with the R behind his name.

Johnson has had far more media coverage than any other Libertarian candidate except, perhaps, Ron Paul two cycles back, but that's debatable. The fact of the matter is that he left New Mexico with a poor job approval rating, and he's just not a good candidate or a good choice. I've tried listening to, and following Stein through the party website. She has a very unrealistic and unworkable approach to the Presidency, and does more pandering than policy.

[Jim]

Unfortunately, neither this president nor the next has the guts or competence to pull every U.S. official out of the Middle East and North Africa as soon as yesterday, let those Muslims slaughter each other, as they have for centuries, and then do business with whomever is left standing. Wasting both blood and treasure in those areas is too stupid to contemplate. They can slice the heads off each other without the use of American materiel or GIs. ISIS per se is no domestic threat to this country. The cell- or lone-wolf-nutcases are, and having folks “over there” is no help in catching those monsters here. That's the business of U.S. law-enforcement agencies. Immigration of folks from those areas should be stopped immediately and resumed when safe.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Jim]

[Rvaughn]

[Sandy]

[Rvaughn]

Unless someone else gets in the debates, we'll never know whether they will crash and burn or get traction. Seems like getting on the ballot in all 50 states is a pretty high hurdle that ought to give some consideration for getting in the debate. Whether or not Johnson or Stein gets in is kind of secondary, though, to my thought that the Democrat and Republican parties really don't need to be the ones who control who gets in the debates. To me it looks like they have created an entity (The Commission on Presidential Debates) that is supposed to look neutral when it really isn't.

[Tim Bonney]

[Rvaughn]

The candidate needs to be on the ballots in enough of the states in order to theoretically get enough electoral votes to win the presidency. If not, I'd say they don't need to be there. Both the Libertarian and Green parties have made that threshold. I think this in itself is a pretty high threshold, since the Democrats and Republicans who make state election laws set the bar in a way that it is easy for them and a high hurdle for other parties. The rules can be very complex and confusing.

I'd say that anyone who makes the ballots in all 50 states should be in the debates, though I would consider an argument for why they shouldn't. "The chaos of too many candidates" in a debate is not an argument I find particularly compelling -- even though I agree with you that the multiplicity of GOP candidates helped Trump get the nomination. Despite how much I dislike him as a presidential contender, he apparently won "fair and square". If one of the others had gotten enough votes, that person would have been the nominee instead of Trump.

Needing to have 15% level of support doesn't seem all that bad on the surface, but this is not as straightforward as the question of ballot access. With that you get into polling data, how the poll is conducted, which polls are used, etc., so that the opportunity to hear a different voice comes down to the methodology and averages of 5 pollsters. Also the 15% arbitrary number was possibly created just for the purpose of keeping third parties out of the debates. Walter Shapiro said that Gary Johnson is "the most popular presidential contender in modern history not to have his own lectern on the debate stage." (He doesn't want Johnson there because he thinks it will help Trump. I suspect many people who don't want a third-party there do so because they think it hurts their candidate and helps the opposition.)

How much support do you think one should have to be in the debate?

[Here's an interesting bit of history on why the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the debates: ]

[KeithE]

FWIW, I’m with you rvaughn. If nothing else we need ideas. For another, when it is one-on-one, it often turns into primarily a negative campaign. Also it will allow more truth speaking to power.

[Tim Bonney]

I think you should be at least polling in double digits to be considered for a debate, maybe more like 20% or more. But the latest poll from RealClearPolitics lists Johnson at 7.2% and Stein at a abismal 2.3%.

I can see an argument for viable 3rd party candidates in the debates. But neither of these candidates fits my definition of viability. Clinton is at 43.9% and Trump is at 41% right now.

I can't imagine a cenario where either one of them could lose enough votes for Johnson or Stein to get elected.

[Rvaughn]

[Shawn Koester]

The Commission on Presidential Debates is a joke. It is a private corporation ran by leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties. Only letting two candidates speak limits debate and conversation. It is neither open or democratic. The debates have made me sick. Debates produced by the CPD are good for ratings but undermines the ideals of the Republic. I respect the right of people to vote for the candidate that best aligns with their ideals whether in the major parties or in third parties.

[Tim Bonney]