• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where would you put the Presidential debate threshold?

Where would you put the Presidential debate threshold?


  • Total voters
    20

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
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
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?

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.
 
I would use a different threshold. I would use 75% as in the percentage of states a candidate is on the ballot.
 
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.
 
I would use a different threshold. I would use 75% as in the percentage of states a candidate is on the ballot.
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.
 
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?

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.
 
I would use a different threshold. I would use 75% as in the percentage of states a candidate is on the ballot.

Or even 50%.

Polling numbers are notoriously incorrect and have nothing to do with the election process. If you're on the ballot you should be included in the debates.
 
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%
 
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%

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.
 
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 say that the limit should be minimum 4 candidates, and anyone polling at 5% (if there are more than 4).
 
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.
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 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.
 
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.
 
Debates are limited in time.
You do not need a third party who has no chance in hell of winning taking away time from the two main candidates.
A third party candidate's polling should show they have a possibility of winning before being included, otherwise it is just a waste of time.
 
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.

Technically, there is no cap, but the bar is set so artificially high, and so many roadblocks have been set in place to discourage third parties, that there might as well be a cap. The end result is still the same.
 
I'd be cool with using ballot access instead.

For polling, I picked 5%. I could go lower too as long as we don't go so low that anyone can get access to the debates by filing to run for president.
 
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?

10% using an aggregate of major polls, or over 15% in any one major poll. I would PERHAPS be keen to drop that to 5/10 if they have 100% ballot access across the US.

If you can't even manage to get 10% support on your own then it is doing a disservice to the American People by taking up the little bits of time they have to hear live answers from the candidates and spend it on people who do not show at least a modicum of ability to generate legitimate interest on their own to make themselves a compelling and legitimate 3rd option.
 
100%.

That way no one would qualify and there would be no more idiotic debates.

They used to be informative, now the candidates rehearse for days and almost every answer is pre-planned. Debates are more about face to me for the moderators then anything else.

Waste of time.


The only debate I want is make every candidate drink 5 shots of whiskey 15 minutes before air time OR put them all in a room for 2 hours with no moderator, no electronic devices (except microphones and cameras) and feed them a question from the Internet every 5 minutes.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, the debates are pointless anyhow, they're typically scripted questions and practiced speeches. However, I wouldn't want to see anyone who doesn't have broad national support up on that stage. If your ideas cannot attract broad support, then why should anyone think that you have any shot in hell of actually winning? The debates are for people and ideologies that can actually win the presidency. They have to prove they are serious contenders before they get invited to the big table. Third parties hope to parlay free television advertising into votes. They've got it entirely backwards. They need to prove they can get votes first, then they get the free advertising. If their message is so weak that they can't attract donors and followers, they are pointless.
 
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.
 
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.

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?

very good question IMO

Im going to answer between 0-5% but I would probably do some other criteria. Number of states or maybe even years of service . . . who knows.
Not that I want to draw the elections out more but i do think they need a better format. On a similar topic i proposes that 3 parties should be represented no mater what. Who cares about anything else, NEVER just two, always 3.

ALso my pick might be a horrible pick, id have to look up the history of percentage to gauge it better guess.
 
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.

No, the ones that make it difficult to get a foothold are the third parties, who don't have a platform that appeals to a majority, or even a sizeable minority, of the American voting public. This isn't some grand conspiracy, this is a failure of the platforms to appeal to most people.

It doesn't matter how many people say they support Johnson, when November rolls around, he's still only going to get 1% of the vote.
 
The hardest part is that the electoral syetem itself is rigged by both parties to choose only one of them. You have to get 270 votes to win. If you don't then both parties, not the third party, decide who wins and it ain't gonna be the third party. To have a better chance, third party candidates need to become Senators and House members first and then a third party might have a realistic shot of winning the presidency.
 
I would put the threshold directly under the door. Where it belongs.
 
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?

Personally I'm fine with the current system.
 
Back
Top Bottom