On December 23, the Federal Election Commission posted all the comments it received, on the proposal to alter regulations concerning general election presidential debates. Use this link to see the comments. After clicking the link, choose “2014”. Then choose “2014-06”, the proposal to alter 11 CFR 110.13(c).
The only commenter who opposes the petition is the attorney for the Commission on Presidential Debates, Lewis K. Loss. Loss’s 7-page comment criticizes specific details of Level the Playing Field, the group that asked the FEC to revise the rules. Level the Playing Field’s own preferred idea for general election presidential debates is for the candidate who submits the most signatures to get on the ballot, by April 30, to also be invited into the presidential debates. There is much to criticize about the specific preference of Level the Playing Field.
However, the attorney for the Commission on Presidential Debates fails to engage the more far-reaching arguments of Level the Playing Field, and many other commenting groups and individuals, that the status quo is unacceptable and harmful to the nation. The key arguments against the status quo are in the comments by Professors Larry Diamond and David King. Among the individual comments, the comment of Jason Sneed is especially compelling. He writes, “I can’t conceive of a more ludicrous situation than to put four seeds in a contest to see which one grows best, and to only give two of those seeds soil, water and light. It truly is no different with presidential elections. Without any opportunity to debate the other candidates and be seen, there is no way to legitimately expect polling numbers to improve.”
Most commenters who express an opinion seem to prefer inviting all candidates who are on the ballot in states containing a majority of electoral votes to be invited into the general election presidential debates. In all U.S. history, there has never been a presidential election with more than seven presidential candidates who were on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral vote. For the years before there were government-printed ballots, this statement still stands. In the years before government-printed ballots, one can modify the statement to say there was no presidential election with more than 7 candidates who prepared privately-printed ballots with presidential elector candidates in states containing a majority of electoral college votes.
Some commenters pointed out that the status quo depends on polls that don’t even include any presidential candidates except the two major party nominees, so obviously those polls aren’t helpful. David Blau comments that the Commission must stop relying on such polls.
The Kentucky Libertarian Party and Ken Moellman commented that if the current policy is maintained, at least debate moderators should always inform viewers that the two invited candidates are not the only presidential candidates, and the moderators should never refer to the two invited candidates as “the candidates”.
Why not just say that any candidate on the ballot in all 50 states will be invited to attend the debates.
Probably because that makes too much sense!
Even William Howard Taft, incumbent president of the U.S. running for re-election, wasn’t on the ballot in all the states in 1912. Neither was Lyndon Johnson, running in 1964. Neither was Harry Truman, running in 1948. Being on the ballot in all 50 states is too strict.
Why not invite all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states in which the total number of electoral votes meet or exceed the minimum required for election (270), regardless of poll numbers?
Bob’s suggestion of “… invite[ing] all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states in which the total number of electoral votes meet or exceed the minimum required for election (270),…” is the best formula, but then again because it would be fair to all, don’t expect the Commission to decide on it. Have they ever been fair?
The “debates” are primarily an exercise in isolating a media moment – Bush Sr. looking at his watch, Clinton “feeling pain” Reagan’s remark about not holding Mondale’s youth against him, or my personal favorite…”Who am I and why am I here?”).
This country is stupid.
In 2012 there were efforts to remove President Obama from the ballot in several states. In the unlikely event that one such effort had succeeded, by your standards Mitt Romney would have been the only candidate invited to the debates.
270 E.V. ballot status should be the threshold.
Very simple solution.
NO government involvement in ANY debate.
i.e. PRIVATE sponsors of ALL debates.
How did the USA manage to survive before the FEC bureaucracy ???
NO party hack Prez conventions.
Nominations ONLY by equal nominating petitions.
Abolish the time bomb Electoral College.
Const Amdt – Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the USA.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
I agree that there should be NO government involvement is any debates.
Tend to agree with you, TruFoe, but would amend my words to say that many of the people in our country are stupid!
Without government involvement, who is going to make the entities holding the debates to allow everyone – 3rd partisans and Independents – to participate?
Government can be good or bad. It’s up to people like us who see and understand what real discrimination is, to put pressure on government to make these privately organized but public and taxpayer paid entities to allow us to participate in the debates.
This is why all 3rd party and Independent candidates who are not invited to a debate – especially where government in involved in some way – to picket the debates and make such a ruckus, the media has to acknowledge our existence.
While posting stories and making replies on venues such as B.A.N. is good – and thanks to Richard for his many years of dedicated service – until we find the time to leave our keyboards, and pick up another kind of board with a picket sign attached to it, we are never going to change the discrimination that we have had to endure over the last 50 years or so.
We can and must be peaceful and lawful in our picketing. But what we need are hundreds doing such – not just a couple of dozen at such a debate. There is strength in numbers. People respect strength!
People forget that the League of Women Voters used to sponsor these presidential debates. We don’t need this commission comprised of the two major parties.
I think this commission was set up in the first place becasue some folks believed that the League of Women Voters made the mistake of inviting John Anderson to at least one of the 1980 debates (that was the one in which Jimmy Carter was represented by an empty chair, he refused to take part in any debate in which then-Congressman Anderson took part, saying he did not want to debate against two Republicans).
Carter’s refusal to participate in this debate could have affected the outcome. The Powers That Be in this country are committed to keeping the peasants from having any representation in debates or other forms of public forum. They know our “common sense” answers to the nations problems would cost them and their cronies millions if not billions, therefore, the objective is to shut up those whose simple ideas would destroy the little game they have going for the handful who make up their circle.
The common people could be the most powerful political organization in the land, if we could get the common people to sit down together for a few days of a presidential election period and agree to support one candidate – even if we don’t agree on many of the issues he/she espouses.
The Establishment worries this could happen and work daily to keep such from happening.
That requirement would be too restrictive. The rule should be that any candidate who could mathematically win the Electoral College should be in the debates.
If I can’t get on the ballot in Oklahoma but I can in all other states plus DC, I can win the presidency, and I should be able to debate.