If there ever was a fractured POTUS election many would agree that this year was it. Both Trump and Clinton have huge negative appeal in poll numbers. The private non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates has established a criteria of an average of 15% polling numbers 5 of the presidential polls. Johnson (Libertarian) is currently at 10% and Stein (Green) is at about 2.5%. Many feel that if either had greater exposure then their polling numbers would rise.
There are three scheduled POTUS debates, the first on 9/26. Considering the public had no problem with wide open Republican party debates with more than 10 candidates on the stage at once. Seems like 4 would be no problem.
So should all 4 candidates be permitted in the 9/26 debate? After that if you don’t have at least 15%, then you’re out.
I think they have it about right. If you can’t hit 15% by September, you’re just on the ballot for protest voters. Since neither has nor will catch fire, they don’t need to clutter up the stage and take time away from the serious contender.
No. They’re both running vanity campaigns and neither should be taken seriously. Stein especially is a revolting piece of shit, never been more than a town council member, got .30% of the vote in 2012. Third party support drops as you get closer to Election Day and there’s no reason to think either Stein or Johnson will be anywhere close to 15%
I could see adding Johnson–10 percent is one voter in ten, after all, and that’s not insignificant. But Stein? 2.5% is nothing, it’s one voter in forty. My understanding is that she’s not even on the ballot in a number of states, except as a write-in, though I could be wrong about that. --If Stein, why not Evin McMullin or Darrell Castle?
I don’t think a presidential debate is or should be a showcase for people who can’t win.
I don’t think any rule changes should be made at this stage. Whatever was agreed to last year should be followed this year. That’s my opinion on Trump’s whining, too.
For the future, I think lowering the polling threshold from 15% to 10% makes sense. You don’t want a 16-person debate by allowing every fringe candidate with low approval ratings, but Gary Johnson makes a good point about how hard it is to get even the 15% when you’re excluded from so much of the process. (Of course, Johnson isn’t even getting 10% reliably.)
I find it impossible to believe that Stein is getting to 15% even with a debate appearance so I don’t really see the point. And what’s the deal with the Greens ballot access? Ballotpedia still has them at 27 states but their own claims 38 plus more coming soon. That would be key for me in allowing any party into the debates.
I have a problem with calling them “non-partisan”. The CPD is very much a joint project of the Democratic and Republican parties. It exists to make it nigh impossible for a third-party to become viable. The 15% threshold was deliberately chosen to make getting into the debates very difficult for third parties.
Now, it’s private and it can make it’s own rules, but let’s not pretend that the CPD is some impartial observer like the League of Women Voters was. It exists to keep the two-party system two-party. Not to act as a fair moderator for all parties.
If Johnson were to edge into the 15% territory to get into a debate, you can bet the 2020 debates would raise the threshold to make sure that mistake doesn’t happen again.
The thing keeping third parties from being viable has very little to do with the debate rules, it’s a problem inherent in our voting system. Until we fix those, there’s going to be two parties and thus two candidates who actually matter. The fact that the debate rules reflect that is not, in itself, particularly important until there’s some chance that a third-party candidate would ever do anything other than act as a spoiler.
There is no reason for Stein to be included in the debates but Johnson is at least on the ballot in every state and has been constantly around 10% for months. I think part of the hurdle to him getting more votes is needing to appear as a serious candidate which is hard to do if you’re not able to participate in the presidential debates or get as much TV access.
I think they should set the first debate bar at on the ballot in every state and the second debate bar at 20%. Realistically a nationally forum should be for national candidates but after you’ve been given your chance to show the country what you’ve got, if they don’t like you there is not reason to keep you around.
The question is invalid: “Should all 4 candidates (Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein)…” How about the Constitution Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Peace and Freedom Party, American Independent Party, America’s Party, Reform Party, Socialist Party USA, Independent American Party, Veterans Party of America, Workers World Party, American Solidarity Party, or the Nutrition Party?
Monica Moorehead of The Workers World Party *has the exact same chance of winning as Johnson or Stein. *
So all 17 or just two. I say- just two, the two that could possibly win.
It just reminds me too much of bad TV growing up:
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein…with your Host, Peter Marshall…? Next on “The Hollywood Squares”…?
“Circle gets the square. Who do you choose?”
“Paul Lynde, for the Win.”
"Paul Lynde… Center Square… for the Win… here is your question:
Operating for more than 60 years in NJ, Vibra-Screw is one of the Aerospace Industries leading manufacturers. For the Win… What do they make…?"
No. Maybe just asking about Johnson is a more interesting question, but he’s only at 10% himself. Is he in striking distance of winning any state at this point in time?
A point Johnson raises is that the 15% threshold in at least 5 polls means that if a poll doesn’t provide Johnson or Stein as an option they cannot possibly hit the 15%.
Sometimes the question is posed as a 4 way race. Sometimes as a 2 candidate contest.
Johnson, sure. He’s at least pretending to run a real campaign, and has a resume to back his appeal. I don’t like his policy, but I can see his position.
Stein is a joke candidate from a joke party, and is worth nothing more than mockery and dismissal.
I can see ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox.
The difference between the two is between 8.5 for Johnson in the 3-way vs 8.0 for Johnson in the 4-way, so it’s not helping him that much (of course, it’s 3.1 vs 0 for Stein).
I somewhat wonder how much the act of polling affects the race. Like, if you’re never even polling for a third party, hard for their supporters to get traction. Not to mention the selection of polls makes quite the difference. Pew and Quinnipiac have better results for Johnson compared to some of the selected polls.
