Poling the Electorate

[Pertinacious Tom]

Poling the Electorate

No, it's not missing an "l" there.

The most straightforward way for a third party presidential candidate to challenge the two-party system is to get into the presidential debates held in the month prior to the general election. But for candidates working outside that system, that's no easy task.

Since 2000, gaining entrance to those debates has required reaching 15 percent in the polls by an unspecified date that's generally around Labor Day. That means that an outsider candidacy has just a few months to appear on the same political horse-race polls which the major party candidates have been included on for more than a year.

...

The American voting public has clamored for a viable third party option for years. According to Gallup, except for one brief dip under 50 percent, a majority of Americans have believed the country needs a legitimate third option since 2007.

...

According to The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)'s website, the 2016 criteria requires a candidate to be "Constitutionally eligible," to appear on enough state ballots to have "a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College," and to "have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations" sometime after Labor Day, "but sufficiently in advance of the first-scheduled debate to allow for orderly planning."

It's that last part that creates such a conundrum for third party candidates.

In 2012, the CPD used polls from ABC News/The Washington Post, NBC News/The Wall Street Journal, CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News and Gallup. The Commission has not yet announced which polls will determine 2016 general election debate participants yet. Of these polls, only Fox News has included Johnson so far in 2016.

Yet last March, a poll conducted by Monmouth University put Gary Johnson at 11 percent in a three-way race with Trump and Clinton. And this is with three-quarters of respondents saying they "don't know enough about him to form an opinion." Johnson, who has filed a joint lawsuit with the Green Party's Jill Stein and others against the CPD for what they describe as collusion with the two major parties, has argued that given the unfavorables of Trump and Clinton, plus the growing number of independents, he would be polling far higher if only he were included in national polls.

With the exception of Fox, those CPD pre$$ corporations are poling the electorate. Right in the ass.

Attempting to justify extra first amendment rights for those corporations, Stevens said this:

The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse...

It seems to me they are playing a unique role in preventing public discourse.

 

[Bent Sailor]

Started as an interesting issue about the difficulty faced by third party candidates, ended with the same old Favre. Disappointing.

 

[Dog]

Started as an interesting issue about the difficulty faced by third party candidates, ended with the same old Favre. Disappointing.

Fuck off...Look at the candidates we have to choose from and this is one way in which the system is rigged to preclude more options...Good topic Tom.

 

[Raz'r]

BS. Blaming the pre$$ is a fools errand. You would need to change the winner takes all rules. The pre$$ reflects the reality that in this system, a duopoly is the result.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

BS. Blaming the pre$$ is a fools errand. You would need to change the winner takes all rules. The pre$$ reflects the reality that in this system, a duopoly is the result.

BS, this is a private policy set by pre$$ corporations, nothing to do with our government's election rules.

Changing this:

According to The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)'s website, the 2016 criteria requires a candidate to be "Constitutionally eligible," to appear on enough state ballots to have "a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College," and to "have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations"

Could be done with or without a change to government rules. Because they are in no way related.

Simlarly, pre$$ corporations who do not currently ask about non-Duopoly candidates could add a question or two to their polls without changing any rules.

Fox is the only one that seems fair and balanced to me.

 

[Olsonist]

Is Tom backsliding on Citizens United?

 

[Sean]

BS. Blaming the pre$$ is a fools errand. You would need to change the winner takes all rules. The pre$$ reflects the reality that in this system, a duopoly is the result.

BS, this is a private policy set by pre$$ corporations, nothing to do with our government's election rules.

Changing this:

According to The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)'s website, the 2016 criteria requires a candidate to be "Constitutionally eligible," to appear on enough state ballots to have "a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College," and to "have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations"

Could be done with or without a change to government rules. Because they are in no way related.

Simlarly, pre$$ corporations who do not currently ask about non-Duopoly candidates could add a question or two to their polls without changing any rules.

Fox is the only one that seems fair and balanced to me.

Tom, flesh out your thoughts on this issue. Is it that 15% is to high but a lower number would work? Or no number at all? How many state ballots would be acceptable? Should Vermin Supreme be invited to the party? Free for all?

 

[Raz'r]

BS. Blaming the pre$$ is a fools errand. You would need to change the winner takes all rules. The pre$$ reflects the reality that in this system, a duopoly is the result.

BS, this is a private policy set by pre$$ corporations, nothing to do with our government's election rules.

Changing this:

According to The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)'s website, the 2016 criteria requires a candidate to be "Constitutionally eligible," to appear on enough state ballots to have "a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College," and to "have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations"

Could be done with or without a change to government rules. Because they are in no way related.

Simlarly, pre$$ corporations who do not currently ask about non-Duopoly candidates could add a question or two to their polls without changing any rules.

Fox is the only one that seems fair and balanced to me.

Bitch all you want, for profit companies follow the almighty $. No one cares about a 3rd party candidate, unless Trump!

 

[Raz'r]

Free $peech takes Cayyy$h.

Publius should understand the almighty $.

$ad watching $peech bite him in the a$$.

 

[Cement_Shoes]

liberties are good,

unless they aren't.

 

[Bent Sailor]

Started as an interesting issue about the difficulty faced by third party candidates, ended with the same old Favre. Disappointing.

Fuck off...Look at the candidates we have to choose from and this is one way in which the system is rigged to preclude more options...Good topic Tom.

Read it again. I think that's a good topic. That Tom falls back to his SCOTUS pre$$ decision fetish is where it falls into disappointment.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

BS. Blaming the pre$$ is a fools errand. You would need to change the winner takes all rules. The pre$$ reflects the reality that in this system, a duopoly is the result.

BS, this is a private policy set by pre$$ corporations, nothing to do with our government's election rules.

Changing this:

According to The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)'s website, the 2016 criteria requires a candidate to be "Constitutionally eligible," to appear on enough state ballots to have "a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College," and to "have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations"

Could be done with or without a change to government rules. Because they are in no way related.

Simlarly, pre$$ corporations who do not currently ask about non-Duopoly candidates could add a question or two to their polls without changing any rules.

Fox is the only one that seems fair and balanced to me.

Tom, flesh out your thoughts on this issue. Is it that 15% is to high but a lower number would work? Or no number at all? How many state ballots would be acceptable? Should Vermin Supreme be invited to the party? Free for all?

I have no problem with the "mathematical chance of winning" standard.

That would swell the current debate stage from the Duopoly Two to a completely unmanageable 3 or maybe 4 people. Unfortunately for fans of good entertainment, Vermin would not be among them.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

so you want government paid for political debates?

because I see no reason an honest libertarian would try to force anything on a corporation. this really sounds like affirmative action for losers who can't get their shit together but want to be included in the winners camp. work harder losers.

That's a weird question. No, I don't, and I'm not sure where you got that idea.

I also don't want to force anyone to do anything here. Pointing out that the CPD's standards suck and that they're poling the electorate isn't forcing them to do anything. It's pointing out that they suck.

The losers are the more than half of Americans who tell pollsters that they want a third party and are not being exposed to any such alternatives.

In the realm of the almighty dollar, it's easy to see why Fox does well in ratings. They're answering the market desire that the other pre$$ corporations are not on this issue.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Is Tom backsliding on Citizens United?

What do you mean?

I've long said that I'm every bit as clear on that decision as the court itself. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, and generally going off on my own tangent because the issues are so unbelievably complex.

I'm still glad to see the special first amendment rights afforded pre$$ corporations by McCain Feingold gone.

 

[Guest]

Tom, I'll play devil's advocate here a bit..... what IYHO, should be the requirement for getting on the debate stage? There has to be some line drawn or we could have as many candidates in the General race as we did in the GOP primaries at the beginning.

I've often wondered if a parliamentary system wouldn't be more fair than the one we have now. There are far too many people, myself included, who are not well represented by either major party. Or even by a potential 3rd party. And a parliamentary system necessarily forces compromise and reaching across the aisle in order to govern.

I've oft wondered if the FF's, in their visceral hatred of the overlords they were running from, didn't go too far in their desire to be different.

 

[Bent Sailor]

I've often wondered if a parliamentary system wouldn't be more fair than the one we have now. There are far too many people, myself included, who are not well represented by either major party. Or even by a potential 3rd party. And a parliamentary system necessarily forces compromise and reaching across the aisle in order to govern.

I've oft wondered if the FF's, in their visceral hatred of the overlords they were running from, didn't go too far in their desire to be different.

I'll leave Tom to answer your queries on the line to be drawn, but I can speak to the parliament thing... and sadly it doesn't work out as you point out. In most countries, you still get a two party system as soon as the apparatchiks work out that their best chance of getting into power is to set that up.

Worse, because the power of the executive and a legislative majority comes together - you lose the potential check & balance the House of Reps provides with a presidential system. I know it's not guaranteed with the republican setup, but it can happen that the House is dominated by the opposite party than the President whereas the Prime Minister is always going to be a figurehead of the House majority.

Both of our systems have their drawbacks. I personally think, despite the circus of your primaries, that a republic with separation of executive and legislative power (even if only sometimes theoretical) is better than the combination we have. I think your FF got that right with your setup.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom, I'll play devil's advocate here a bit..... what IYHO, should be the requirement for getting on the debate stage? There has to be some line drawn or we could have as many candidates in the General race as we did in the GOP primaries at the beginning.

...

As I said to Sean,

I have no problem with the "mathematical chance of winning" standard.

Ballot access laws that apply to non-Duopoly candidates will do the rest of the filtering. I think those laws should apply to Duopoly candidates as well, but that would change nothing at the Presidential level. The Duopoly candidates, the Libertarians, and maybe one or two others would qualify under the "mathematical chance of winning" standard.

 

[Sean]

Tom, I'll play devil's advocate here a bit..... what IYHO, should be the requirement for getting on the debate stage? There has to be some line drawn or we could have as many candidates in the General race as we did in the GOP primaries at the beginning.

...

As I said to Sean,

I have no problem with the "mathematical chance of winning" standard.

Ballot access laws that apply to non-Duopoly candidates will do the rest of the filtering. I think those laws should apply to Duopoly candidates as well, but that would change nothing at the Presidential level. The Duopoly candidates, the Libertarians, and maybe one or two others would qualify under the "mathematical chance of winning" standard.

I must have missed it; how is "mathematical chance of winning" defined?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I must have missed it; how is "mathematical chance of winning" defined?

Being on the ballot in enough states to potentially win enough electoral votes to be President. How many states depends on which ones you are on, since some get more electoral votes than others.