WHY ARE MINORITY PARTIES EXCLUDED FROM PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[whichphilosophy]

Why are minority parties being excluded from Presidential debates.

If they are standing nationwide, or covering a sufficient number of states then this should be permissible.

Discuss

 

[bilby]

Why are minority parties being excluded from Presidential debates.

If they are standing nationwide, or covering a sufficient number of states then this should be permissible.

Discuss

There's nothing to discuss.

Under the current system, such candidates are not excluded - unless their chances are vanishingly small, which they always are. (The rule is that to be included, a candidate needs to poll above 15% in at least five opinion polls).

When they have less than 15% support, what they have to say is just irrelevant noise. The voters have enough bullshit to dig through as it is, without adding a third or fourth political bullshitter to the mix.

It's a two party system. I don't think it should be; But it is, and it's not going to stop being just because the Libertarian or Green candidate gets fifteen minutes of fame during the debates. Including such candidates would be a useful exercise only after the necessary constitutional amendment(s) to establish a system that gives minor parties a realistic chance. Until then, including them is a waste of everyone's time - including that of the candidates themselves.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why 15%? These other parties don't get much media coverage and so unless they're billionaires like Trump or Perot, can they break the system? Also, a lot of main party candidates were allowed to debate each other at less than 15% of the party vote. How is that consistent?

 

[bilby]

Why 15%? These other parties don't get much media coverage and so unless they're billionaires like Trump or Perot, can they break the system? Also, a lot of main party candidates were allowed to debate each other at less than 15% of the party vote. How is that consistent?

It's an arbitrary number, and is probably too low by a wide margin. If I was setting the threshold, given the system that exists today for US presidential elections, I would go for about 20% - any candidate with less support than that by the time the first debate comes around (which is a LONG way into the absurdly protracted campaigns run for such elections) has basically no chance at all.

You could as well ask why the Talbot Road Primary School First XI are not allowed to play in the English Premier League. They can't win, so what would be the point?

Including them in the debates gets them almost exactly none of the way towards breaking the system. They need to break the system FIRST. Only then would including them in the debates be a non-futile exercise.

I agree that the system probably needs to be 'broken' and redesigned. But it is pretty obvious that the current system cannot be broken by inviting minor party presidential candidates to the debates. You might as well try to break a battleship with a feather-duster.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why are minority parties being excluded from Presidential debates.

If they are standing nationwide, or covering a sufficient number of states then this should be permissible.

Discuss

There's nothing to discuss.

Under the current system, such candidates are not excluded - unless their chances are vanishingly small, which they always are. (The rule is that to be included, a candidate needs to poll above 15% in at least five opinion polls).

When they have less than 15% support, what they have to say is just irrelevant noise. The voters have enough bullshit to dig through as it is, without adding a third or fourth political bullshitter to the mix.

It's a two party system. I don't think it should be; But it is, and it's not going to stop being just because the Libertarian or Green candidate gets fifteen minutes of fame during the debates. Including such candidates would be a useful exercise only after the necessary constitutional amendment(s) to establish a system that gives minor parties a realistic chance. Until then, including them is a waste of everyone's time - including that of the candidates themselves.

So you are saying that the US is a two party state. At times when their overall policies are not so different we can call it a state run by one party with two names.

is not possible to state a party has 15% of the votes until after the election. If they are fielding candidates in all or a substantial part of the USA, then in a democracy they are entitled to openly debate with the other parties who are fielding candidates in all or nearly all parts of the USA. This is called democracy and needs no further justification.

Is there a constitution which only allows the two parties to debate with each other? If so this is undemocratic.
The Libertarians and Greens have just as much right to put their views across and let the public decide for themselves not the two party state.

The proposed right to have their views aired is not a waste of time.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why 15%? These other parties don't get much media coverage and so unless they're billionaires like Trump or Perot, can they break the system? Also, a lot of main party candidates were allowed to debate each other at less than 15% of the party vote. How is that consistent?

It's an arbitrary number, and is probably too low by a wide margin. If I was setting the threshold, given the system that exists today for US presidential elections, I would go for about 20% - any candidate with less support than that by the time the first debate comes around (which is a LONG way into the absurdly protracted campaigns run for such elections) has basically no chance at all.

You could as well ask why the Talbot Road Primary School First XI are not allowed to play in the English Premier League. They can't win, so what would be the point?

Including them in the debates gets them almost exactly none of the way towards breaking the system. They need to break the system FIRST. Only then would including them in the debates be a non-futile exercise.

I agree that the system probably needs to be 'broken' and redesigned. But it is pretty obvious that the current system cannot be broken by inviting minor party presidential candidates to the debates. You might as well try to break a battleship with a feather-duster.

The topic is for parties who field candidates in all or a substantial part of the USA. One off candidates can have their rights exercised at a local level.
This has not been a problem in the UK or Europe and it cannot foreseeably be a problem in the USA except for those who advocate a two party state.

 

[BH]

I have always wondered about places like Britain with the BBC and other state owned media outlets. During your election season are all parties running for office guaranteed so much air time to get their points across? I know some of your tv stations and radio are privately owned and I assume charge for ads like they do here in the US but what about stations like the BBC? I know our PBS stations would often allow the third parties on the state and national level at least some chance to talk to viewers and make their case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why are minority parties being excluded from Presidential debates.

If they are standing nationwide, or covering a sufficient number of states then this should be permissible.

Discuss

Johnson and Stein offer nothing to the equation. Their parties are unrepresented in Congress and their plans are even less likely to work than Trump's or Clinton's.

I think the Presidential Debate Commission (or whatever it is called) should have a rule that says if your party has at least 5 members in Congress, you automatically get into the Presidential debate.

 

[Sarpedon]

One reason that the two party's policies are not so different (and actually, they are) is because in certain things, there's not much variation between what works and what the majority of people would accept. The two parties differences on banking is that one says that banks should have little if any regulation, and the other party says that banks should have considerable regulation. No one says 'there shouldn't be any banks,' or 'all banks should be government run,' because these ideas aren't acceptable to the vast majority of people. They are the opinions of fringe groups. Many issues have minimal differences and common ground that has, til recently, allowed the parties to work together and compromise and reach a consensus conclusion. It amazes me that even after one of the parties has been taken over by an extremist faction that has radicalized its positions, people are still saying there's no difference between the parties. To me, there seem to be many differences.

Aggressively maintaining racist status quo vs progress in civil rights.
Unilateral military action around the world vs collective security
Denial of Global Warming and virtually all environmental issues vs science based realism on these issues
Removal of all taxes and regulation for corporations vs taxing and regulating corporations fairly for their use of resources and with a goal of long term stability.
Imposition of a particular religion as a state religion vs maintaining constitutional separation between church and state.
and so on.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From Wiki:

After studying the election process in 1985, the bipartisan National Commission on Elections recommended "[t]urning over the sponsorship of Presidential debates to the two major parties".[2] The CPD was established in 1987 by the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican Parties to "take control of the Presidential debates".[2] The commission was staffed by members from the two parties and chaired by the heads of the Democratic and Republican parties, Paul G. Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf.[2] At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Kirk said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.[2]

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the lecterns. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that it was withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."[4]

In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a candidate to be included in the national debates he or she must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[8] This rule is considered controversial[9] as Americans tune into the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two largest parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for being organized in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

In 2003, a 501(c)(3) called Open Debates was formed[10] to advocate debates that included third parties and that allowed exchanges among the candidates.[11] Criticism by Open Debates of CPD for the 2012 election include the secret contract between CPD and the Obama and Romney campaigns (a complaint joined by 17 other organizations including Judicial Watch)[12] and CPD informing the candidates of the debate topics in advance.[13]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Under the current system, such candidates are not excluded - unless their chances are vanishingly small, which they always are. (The rule is that to be included, a candidate needs to poll above 15% in at least five opinion polls).

When they have less than 15% support, what they have to say is just irrelevant noise. The voters have enough bullshit to dig through as it is, without adding a third or fourth political bullshitter to the mix.

1. Locking them out of the debates is a big reason WHY they are under 15% support. If they were in allowed in the debates those numbers would likely be considerably higher.

2. Even if their chances are minimal, their voices can still be extremely valuable, because they can elicit responses form the main contenders. There are many issues that go completely unmentioned in these debates. But if one of the minority parties had one of these issues as their main platform point, then the main parties would be forced to take a position on them.

How about allowing the minority parties into the debate but allocating questions/time to them based on their support? If you are polling very low you only get to show up for a few minutes, basically as a guest speaker in the debate for your primary issue, and then you're not there for the next segment?

 

[Sarpedon]

Bah, in our media saturated country, they should be able to get all the coverage they want, if only people were interested in hearing them. There is no shortage of outlets and networks are very interested in finding content...if it will draw viewership.

The fact is that the minor parties tend to be sub-par. A talented libertarian would do better as a libertarian/Republican rather than as a libertarian. Likewise, there's plenty of room for environmentalists in the Democratic party. The third parties are for people with fringe beliefs. Smaller fishbowls for smaller fish. Ron Paul was a Libertarian, and secured a House seat. Rand Paul became a Libertarian/Republican and became a Senator. The Libertarian party was too small for someone of even Rand Paul's meagre talents. Both the Green and Libertarian parties are riddled with conspiracy theorists, and others who have a reason for not going with the major parties. Sure, disgust at the status quo is something, but the idea that these fringe parties are more capable of changing the status quo than someone working within the system is fatuous. One of the biggest conspiracy theories is the idea that 'the media' is out to block people out. 'The Media' will put anything on that generates revenue. Johnson and Stein are not being excluded because they aren't part of the major parties; they are being excluded because no one is interested in watching them.

Johnson and Stein are fools. The idea that exposing them to a wider audience would bring them more support is foolish. They've both gotten media coverage, and both have failed to parlay that into a major following. If the coverage they got had been found interesting, then their coverage would have increased.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Both Johnson and Stein, no matter how different their politics may be, are better than a rapist pedophile psychopathic racist fascist.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Under the current system, such candidates are not excluded - unless their chances are vanishingly small, which they always are. (The rule is that to be included, a candidate needs to poll above 15% in at least five opinion polls).

When they have less than 15% support, what they have to say is just irrelevant noise. The voters have enough bullshit to dig through as it is, without adding a third or fourth political bullshitter to the mix.

1. Locking them out of the debates is a big reason WHY they are under 15% support. If they were in allowed in the debates those numbers would likely be considerably higher.

Since no third party can seem to get above 10% without good media exposure, why wouldn't the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates set it to 15%?

 

[Sarpedon]

Both Johnson and Stein, no matter how different their politics may be, are better than a rapist pedophile psychopathic racist fascist.

Says you, and I agree. But not says the voting public.

You see, there's a big difference between saying 'I prefer A over B,' and saying 'I support A.' This might be a historic year, because a third party might actually carry a state (Utah). However, while interest in third party candidates is up considerably, they still don't meet the low threshold, or even the lower threshold of 10%.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Both Johnson and Stein, no matter how different their politics may be, are better than a rapist pedophile psychopathic racist fascist.

Says you, and I agree. But not says the voting public.

You see, there's a big difference between saying 'I prefer A over B,' and saying 'I support A.' This might be a historic year, because a third party might actually carry a state (Utah). However, while interest in third party candidates is up considerably, they still don't meet the low threshold, or even the lower threshold of 10%.

And people probably won't either prefer or even support either of Stein or Johnson unless they think they have a chance of winning, which they get from having serious media coverage which includes the debates. 62% of voters wanted Gary Johnson in the polls, but it's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Terrell]

What is Aleppo? (Gary Johnson)

Jill Stein late for rally because she went to the wrong city. What do you mean this isn't Columbus? What is this Cincinnati you speak of?

 

[bilby]

It's an arbitrary number, and is probably too low by a wide margin. If I was setting the threshold, given the system that exists today for US presidential elections, I would go for about 20% - any candidate with less support than that by the time the first debate comes around (which is a LONG way into the absurdly protracted campaigns run for such elections) has basically no chance at all.

You could as well ask why the Talbot Road Primary School First XI are not allowed to play in the English Premier League. They can't win, so what would be the point?

Including them in the debates gets them almost exactly none of the way towards breaking the system. They need to break the system FIRST. Only then would including them in the debates be a non-futile exercise.

I agree that the system probably needs to be 'broken' and redesigned. But it is pretty obvious that the current system cannot be broken by inviting minor party presidential candidates to the debates. You might as well try to break a battleship with a feather-duster.

The topic is for parties who field candidates in all or a substantial part of the USA. One off candidates can have their rights exercised at a local level.
This has not been a problem in the UK or Europe and it cannot foreseeably be a problem in the USA except for those who advocate a two party state.

You seem to be struggling to grasp the difference between accepting current reality as real, and advocating the continuation of that reality.

I don't advocate a two party state; I recognise that one exists. Debates won't change that - it is a direct consequence of the constitutional rules for US presidential elections.

In other countries, it is possible for third parties to be represented. It would likely also be possible for third parties to be represented in the US legislature. But POTUS is selected based on a two party system - and that will remain true no matter how much we dislike it, and no matter how many people are invited to the televised debates.

The problem (and therefore the solution) is in the constitution. Debates simply have no effec on the two party system in the absence of constitutional reform. And the constitution makes no mention of televised debates, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

 

[bilby]

Both Johnson and Stein, no matter how different their politics may be, are better than a rapist pedophile psychopathic racist fascist.

This is the media we are talking about. Their definition of better is 'gets higher ratings'.

Democracy is a popularity contest. Whining about not being popular enough because you don't get media attention is putting the cart before the horse. If the media thinks for a second that you are going to be appealing to watch, they will broadcast your speeches on high rotation, no matter how appalling those speeches might be.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't think presidential elections are the way to build third parties.

One reason for the New Deal was the rising number of socialists winning office. IIRC think there was a socialist governor…

HRC is not the best, more neoliberalism, maybe more military adventureism(if that's a word). But when Trump says he might contest the election, that should give potential third parties voters pause. If the GOPers had their way, there would be a judiciary that would do everything they could to get Trump in. And they still might.

This isn't play time.