"Jeff Aldersmith," 5% in the Polls, and the Debates

Great Debates
1

I saw an interesting column today, concerning who should be allowed in the debates. The current rules say that only candidates supported by 15% of the population should be allowed in the debates.

Of course, the far lefties supporting Nader and the far righties supporting Buchanan think this is unfair- thye both say that 5% should be enough to get a candidate into the debates (this conveniently leaves out the Libertarians, and other parties).

The column cited 1992 surveys in which people were asked to choose among George Bush (the elder), Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and Jeff Aldersmith. Jeff Aldersmith, who did not exist, was the choice of 5% of those surveyed!

The point of the column was, there are so many uninformed or disillusioned voters out there, practically ANY name presented on an equal footing with the other (real)candidates can garner 5% of the vote. In surveys, at least.

So, considering that Nader and Buchanan are at the same level of support as Jeff Aldersmith, how valid ARE their claims to inclusion in the debates?

2

Let’s assume that most of the voters surveyed in 1992 were familiar with Bush, Clinton, and Perot. It is reasonable to interpret the 5% showing for Aldersmith (who, by definition, no one knew anything about) is the equivalent of a 5% vote for “not Bush, Clinton, or Perot.” (The survey methodology is crucial to interpreting the results of this one. Got a cite or link to the survey you speak of?)

Obviously, a 5% showing for a non-existent candidate is not indicative that 5% of people support his (non-existent) policies, much less that they want to hear him discuss those policies in a debate. It’s a showing that 5% of people want “none of the above.” Which, in turn, warrants this brief interlude:

In this case, Aldersmith is “someone else,” but so is crochety ex-Navy SEAL Rudy Bosch, author J.D. Salinger, and that midget from the “Austin Powers” movie. What reason is there to believe that a poll of “Bush, Clinton, Perot, or Rudy Bosch” would not have yielded the same 5% result for Rudy? By your logic, Rudy should be invited to the debate, too.

Obviously, you’re willing to accept that participation in the debate should be limited to those who manage at least a minimal level of public support. Fair enough, but you need to rethink the structure of the survey. Would Aldersmith still have gotten 5% if the choices were Bush, Clinton, Perot, Aldersmith, Howard Phillips (candidate from the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party), Lenora Fulani (candidate from the New Alliance Party), John Hagelin (Natural Law Party), and a few dozen others I can’t locate right now? Probably not-- that 5% “none of the above vote” probably would have divided up roughly equally among the numerous other fringe candidates.

3

Also I’m curious to hear more about the poll. What is it a national poll? How did they phrase the questions, on and on.

4

Well, it got ignored by most when I brought it up in “Should Ralph Nader be Allowed in the Debates?”, so here’s hoping a second try brings more replies.

The Article from the Washington Post

Read. Enjoy. Discuss.

5

Interesting. However it still seems that 5% would be alright. A one time poll gets a man 5%, another one time poll gets someone else 2%. However the presidental debates are based on numerous polls. It seems that the effects would even each other out.

6

Thanks for the link, though. For those too lazy to click, here’s the question and the answers:

“If the 1992 Presidential Election were to be held today [April 1992], and the candidates were George Bush, the Republican candidate; Bill Clinton, the Democrat; and Gary Aldersmith, the Independent, for whom would you vote?”

Answers were Bush 43%, Clinton 35%, and Aldersmith 5%. That yields a total of 83%. It’s possible that the remaining 17% answered “none of the above,” or “I don’t know/unsure,” but the article doesn’t say.

That missing 17% is important, since it does suggest that some people chose “none of the above” rather than picking a non-existent name they had never heard before, but the question itself is revealing. Calling Aldersmith “the Independent” already makes him attractive to some voters who would cast a vote for an unknown simply as a protest to the third-party system. The question also posits a false dilemma, requiring most people answering the question to select one of the three, rather than giving them an explicit “none of the above” or “other” option. All told, I don’t find it at all surprising that a non-existent person got 5% of that poll with the question as presented.

Which brings us around to John’s question: should Nader, with his 5% support in the polls, be allowed into the debates. Assuming everyone agrees that 5% is an acceptable threshold, the answer is “it depends.” Specifically, it depends on what poll question was asked. Was it just Bush/Gore/Nader? Bush/Gore/Nader/Buchanan? Bush/Gore/Nader/Buchanan/Hagelin*/Browne**/Moorehead***/ McReynolds^/Phillips^^/Bellis^^^/none of the above/other? The more third-party candidates you throw into the mix, the less likely Nader is to take 5% or more of the limited pool of third-party voters.

My unconsidered opinion? A statistically significant, reproducible showing of more than 5% support in national polls that include all of the candidates receiving significant national attention-- Bush/Gore/Nader/Buchanan, for example-- ought to be enough to entitle a candidate to participate in the debate. Does Nader fit that bill? If so, let him debate.

  • Reform/Natural Law Party Candidate for President
    ** Libertarian Party Candidate for President
    *** Workers World Party Candidate for President
    ^ Socialist Party Candidate for President
    ^^ U.S. Independent American Party/ Constitution Party Candidate for President
    ^^^ American Party Candidate for President
7

Would that 17% be Perot?

8

If they read the names of the candidates alphabetically, he would have been the first one they mentioned. Could one out of 20 just been trying to get it over with?

In Texes where they elect everybody from the President to the County Sherriff to the city Judges to the Railroad Commissioner to the local school board on the same never-ending ballot, being the first name in the alphabet is quite an edge.

I’d like to see what the results would be this election cycle if the guys last name was Zapata.