- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
CPD: The Commission on Presidential Debates: An Overview
Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates? The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000.
That's an interesting take, and one that I would be open to, but I'd need to see ballot access made more consistent and reasonable and equitable first.I would use a different threshold. I would use 75% as in the percentage of states a candidate is on the ballot.
According to the link below, the current threshold for a Presidential candidate to participate in a Presidential debate is 15%. This obviously locks out third-party candidates such as Libertarians, Greens, popular independents, and others. (Which the cynical me says this is done purposely to discourage any uppity third-party movement, but I digress.)
Anyway, if you were the "Debate Czar", and it was wholly up to you, where would you put the threshold?
I would use a different threshold. I would use 75% as in the percentage of states a candidate is on the ballot.
If nothing else, visible third-party candidates have historically forced the two main candidates to address issues that they normally avoid. That's a good thing, IMO.Off the cuff, I picked 0-5%.
I think that level would allow candidates from fringe parties an opportunity to participate, enlighten voters with the various "powers" that are operating in the country, and would still keep the count low enough to be manageable in a debate.
In fact, having more than two candidates might enhance the debate process, as it would possibly keep all participants more honest.
If nothing else, visible third-party candidates have historically forced the two main candidates to address issues that they normally avoid. That's a good thing, IMO.
I picked a flat 5%, but for the same reasons. I would be ok with down to 2%
According to the link below, the current threshold for a Presidential candidate to participate in a Presidential debate is 15%. This obviously locks out third-party candidates such as Libertarians, Greens, popular independents, and others. (Which the cynical me says this is done purposely to discourage any uppity third-party movement, but I digress.)
Anyway, if you were the "Debate Czar", and it was wholly up to you, where would you put the threshold?
In this election, the best debate would have Dem, Rep, Libertarian, and even Green. I wouldn't do anything beyond that. There is no popular independent candidate and the other parties are way too small. It does need to be kept reasonable, just the current threshold is unreasonable in the other direction.I'm with you. As I wrote, off the cuff. I don't follow the percentages all candidates from all groups get. 2% may be too low, or not.
Don't need 6 people on the stage, but certainly more than two would allow viewers to likely see a more informative debate.
I would say that the limit should be minimum 4 candidates, and anyone polling at 5% (if there are more than 4).
I could see that - but with 4 candidates, it's still going to get tight for time purposes (though far better). But if you limit it to three, it's going to be the bottom two tag-teaming the top one.
4 Strikes me as the best numbers - I would say the top 4, unless those top 4 dip below 5%, at which point, they cease to be included.
4 I felt is a good number, and while it is true you can't just have infinity candidates, I think it needs to be hardwired that there will be more than 2. So maybe a cap somewhere, but regardless, we cannot allow the cap at two to continue.
According to the link below, the current threshold for a Presidential candidate to participate in a Presidential debate is 15%. This obviously locks out third-party candidates such as Libertarians, Greens, popular independents, and others. (Which the cynical me says this is done purposely to discourage any uppity third-party movement, but I digress.)
Anyway, if you were the "Debate Czar", and it was wholly up to you, where would you put the threshold?
Citizens seem very unhappy with the current political cycle.
Lets try and drop the requirement to 10% and see what effect
that has this election cycle. The 15% requirement is a really high
hurdle to achieve and if our goal is another viable choice maybe it's
time for a change.
But if your goal is another viable choice then they should be getting more than 15% of the vote anyway. As much as everyone, even in their own respective parties, hate both Trump and Clinton, this is the best chance for a third party to be more viable. If they can't break away from the 15% limit than the Clinton and Trump dwebes aren't going to vote for anyone else anyway.
According to the link below, the current threshold for a Presidential candidate to participate in a Presidential debate is 15%. This obviously locks out third-party candidates such as Libertarians, Greens, popular independents, and others. (Which the cynical me says this is done purposely to discourage any uppity third-party movement, but I digress.)
Anyway, if you were the "Debate Czar", and it was wholly up to you, where would you put the threshold?
I understand what you are saying but right now the two parties in control make it so difficult for the third to get a foot hold. That is why I went with the 10% number.
If the third party can not get invited to the national debates then they are not going to win, but more important they won't be able to raise money. I think Johnson is around 12 to 13% right now.
According to the link below, the current threshold for a Presidential candidate to participate in a Presidential debate is 15%. This obviously locks out third-party candidates such as Libertarians, Greens, popular independents, and others. (Which the cynical me says this is done purposely to discourage any uppity third-party movement, but I digress.)
Anyway, if you were the "Debate Czar", and it was wholly up to you, where would you put the threshold?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?