CDZ Presidential Debates

[oldsoul]

We all know, or should by now, that the threshold for "admittance" into the national Presidential Debates is 15% of an average of several national polls. Is that acceptable to you? Do you think that is a good place to put the "line in the sand"? I say "no".
What would be wrong, bad, or otherwise unacceptable, about putting the threshold in a more "concrete" place? Something more measurable, more defined than an average of opinion polls? Something that relies less on name recognition, and more on action. I propose the threshold be moved to any candidate that has successfully met the requirements to be on the ballot in at least 15 states. That's double the current 15%, at 30%, and it's far more "legitimate", IMHO. Let's face it, how many people in the "national average" of polls even know who Johnson, and Stein are (not to mention the rest of the "lesser known" candidates)?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Open debates for anyone coming in at 5% or better, closed to both democratic and republican nominees.

 

[320 Years of History]

If a candidate is running, they should be a participant in the debates. I don't care how well known they are or are not. Even a very unknown candidate may have ideas and perspectives to offer that are worth hearing and considering.

If the news organizations hosting the debates can give Trump millions of free promotion during the primaries, the least they can do is give the lesser known candidates the free promotion of being present in the debates.

Frankly, the debate format concerns me more than does who participates.

 

[oldsoul]

If a candidate is running, they should be a participant in the debates. I don't care how well known they are or are not. Even a very unknown candidate may have ideas and perspectives to offer that are worth hearing and considering.

If the news organizations hosting the debates can give Trump millions of free promotion during the primaries, the least they can do is give the lesser known candidates the free promotion of being present in the debates.

Frankly, the debate format concerns me more than does who participates.

Agreed that the debate format is...questionable, at best. I do think there needs to be some sort of cut-off for who participates. Would you really wan to see 20-30 "candidates" on stage most of whom aren't even on any ballots? I mean really, to allow anyone who wishes to participate, one would open the door for literally millions to try, just to be on TV. There needs to be some sort of limit imposed, or it simply would get too big to be of ANY value.

 

[TNHarley]

Publically funded elections
BOOM

 

[Mac1958]

Open debates for anyone coming in at 5% or better, closed to both democratic and republican nominees.

There ya go.

We need to loosen the grip of this ridiculous duopoly.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

open the door for literally millions to try

Maybe they should have actual auditions for folks who aren't on the ticket of either major party. Do it something like one of those TV shows that has folks tweet/text votes for folks. Let the top five vote getters participate? Just a thought...as I said, I don't care too much about who gets to participate or doesn't.

 

[Votto]

I say have a death match.

Put them in a ring without a referee.

No matter who loses, we all win a little.

 

[Ozone]

I propose the threshold be moved to any candidate that has successfully met the requirements to be on the ballot in at least 15 states.

no. all 50 states + dc because otherwise all the candidates will just suck up to the same 15 states all the time while the rest go feral.

 

[oldsoul]

I propose the threshold be moved to any candidate that has successfully met the requirements to be on the ballot in at least 15 states.

no. all 50 states + dc because otherwise all the candidates will just suck up to the same 15 states all the time while the rest go feral.

What? I don't follow the logic here. How is it that "the rest will go feral."? I don't get it. Wouldn't a candidate WANT to be on the ballot in all 50 states + DC?
What I am suggesting is that under the current system must have sufficient name recognition that a wide swath of people not just know who they are, but actually say they would vote for them. What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

 

[Ozone]

I propose the threshold be moved to any candidate that has successfully met the requirements to be on the ballot in at least 15 states.

no. all 50 states + dc because otherwise all the candidates will just suck up to the same 15 states all the time while the rest go feral.

What? I don't follow the logic here. How is it that "the rest will go feral."? I don't get it. Wouldn't a candidate WANT to be on the ballot in all 50 states + DC?
What I am suggesting is that under the current system must have sufficient name recognition that a wide swath of people not just know who they are, but actually say they would vote for them. What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

because the more candidates on the debate, the less time per candidate to speak; all sound-bites and buzzwords and personal insults, but no substance. and if the minimum requirement is be on the ballot in 15 states, then it's a question, which are the 15 easiest states to get there? that's where the focus would be. what i mean by ''go feral'', i mean that the two major parties would casually gerrymander things even more in the other states to prevent ballot access. that's what the good old boy system does, very cheeky with these politicians, you know. so you'd get an interesting debate full of mudslinging from candidates that have zero chances of getting elected. it's my opinion of course, but i think it's wise, and i also think that if your ballot access criteria was expanded from 15 states to all 50 states + dc, then it could work well enough to get one or two of the other parties, libertarians and greens in particular, on equal footing with the two major parties we have now.

 

[jwoodie]

Given that Presidential Debates are already neutered by restrictive rules of engagement and obfuscated by "moderators" seeking their 90 minutes of fame, adding marginal candidates to the number of participants serves no purpose other than to further dilute what little substance still remains.

 

[oldsoul]

I propose the threshold be moved to any candidate that has successfully met the requirements to be on the ballot in at least 15 states.

no. all 50 states + dc because otherwise all the candidates will just suck up to the same 15 states all the time while the rest go feral.

What? I don't follow the logic here. How is it that "the rest will go feral."? I don't get it. Wouldn't a candidate WANT to be on the ballot in all 50 states + DC?
What I am suggesting is that under the current system must have sufficient name recognition that a wide swath of people not just know who they are, but actually say they would vote for them. What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

because the more candidates on the debate, the less time per candidate to speak; all sound-bites and buzzwords and personal insults, but no substance. and if the minimum requirement is be on the ballot in 15 states, then it's a question, which are the 15 easiest states to get there? that's where the focus would be. what i mean by ''go feral'', i mean that the two major parties would casually gerrymander things even more in the other states to prevent ballot access. that's what the good old boy system does, very cheeky with these politicians, you know. so you'd get an interesting debate full of mudslinging from candidates that have zero chances of getting elected. it's my opinion of course, but i think it's wise, and i also think that if your ballot access criteria was expanded from 15 states to all 50 states + dc, then it could work well enough to get one or two of the other parties, libertarians and greens in particular, on equal footing with the two major parties we have now.

You may be quite correct in your assessment of the ultimate outcome. However, is it necessary for all 50 states + DC? It would be wonderful to believe that that is reasonably attainable for serious candidates, as Johnson has shown, but is it really necessary? Would 40, or even 30 be sufficient? Or is 50 +DC the only acceptable number to you?

 

[oldsoul]

Given that Presidential Debates are already neutered by restrictive rules of engagement and obfuscated by "moderators" seeking their 90 minutes of fame, adding marginal candidates to the number of participants serves no purpose other than to further dilute what little substance still remains.

I disagree. I think that having people like Johnson, and perhaps even Stein (don't know enough about her), part of the debates would bring a level of discussion not seen in recent memory. There is the potential pitfall of more mudslinging and name calling, as Ozone suggested, but that would be more a statement to the effectiveness of the debates in general, and the moderators specifically, to organize, and conduct, a proper debate based on differing ideas, and solutions.

 

[320 Years of History]

What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

I guess the answer to that depends on how one feels about a candidate having to earn name recognition through their own efforts vs. being given it by dint of being permitted to participate in the debates.

I think if I had my way, the election announcements would be made a month before the first debate, the party primaries held two weeks later (yes, everyone just has to haul out and vote or the parties decide among their leaderships), the conventions in the next week, followed by a week of "stumping," and then the first debate itself would become the first time anyone sees the candidates on a level playing field. I'd also make the debates span two or three evenings so that each candidate would have time to present themselves overall and then bicker amongst themselves about the merits and detractors of their proposals.

 

[CowboyTed]

Open debates for anyone coming in at 5% or better, closed to both democratic and republican nominees.

There ya go.

We need to loosen the grip of this ridiculous duopoly.
.

We have been screaming this since the start STV (single transfer vote) will fundamentally change US politics. (Preference Voting)

Add in PR (proportional representation). i.e. multi seat districts and end winner takes all state votes...

Suddenly you have a far better representation of democracy....

Trump is popular because the present system is very bad. Nothing gets done, far too much appealing to the base instead of trying to win the middle... STV and PR encourage politicians to rush to the center, extreme politics have there place but the big votes are in the center..

Politicians are rewarded for good policies which either have efficient effective government or they are out of your way.... Well costed programs are rewarded by both sides... Bickering is less effective..

 

[GaryDog]

What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

I guess the answer to that depends on how one feels about a candidate having to earn name recognition through their own efforts vs. being given it by dint of being permitted to participate in the debates.

I think if I had my way, the election announcements would be made a month before the first debate, the party primaries held two weeks later (yes, everyone just has to haul out and vote or the parties decide among their leaderships), the conventions in the next week, followed by a week of "stumping," and then the first debate itself would become the first time anyone sees the candidates on a level playing field. I'd also make the debates span two or three evenings so that each candidate would have time to present themselves overall and then bicker amongst themselves about the merits and detractors of their proposals.

I go back and forth on this. Yes, a shorter election season seems to be the way it should work (and it works well in the UK and other countries). Then again, our thorough vetting of candidates over a year and a half has, at times, been beneficial in weeding out the bad apples.

 

[oldsoul]

What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

I guess the answer to that depends on how one feels about a candidate having to earn name recognition through their own efforts vs. being given it by dint of being permitted to participate in the debates.

I think if I had my way, the election announcements would be made a month before the first debate, the party primaries held two weeks later (yes, everyone just has to haul out and vote or the parties decide among their leaderships), the conventions in the next week, followed by a week of "stumping," and then the first debate itself would become the first time anyone sees the candidates on a level playing field. I'd also make the debates span two or three evenings so that each candidate would have time to present themselves overall and then bicker amongst themselves about the merits and detractors of their proposals.

That is an interesting idea. I think it would force candidates to be more issues focused, and make the pure partisans/ideologues more obvious to the average voter.

 

[oldsoul]

What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

I guess the answer to that depends on how one feels about a candidate having to earn name recognition through their own efforts vs. being given it by dint of being permitted to participate in the debates.

I think if I had my way, the election announcements would be made a month before the first debate, the party primaries held two weeks later (yes, everyone just has to haul out and vote or the parties decide among their leaderships), the conventions in the next week, followed by a week of "stumping," and then the first debate itself would become the first time anyone sees the candidates on a level playing field. I'd also make the debates span two or three evenings so that each candidate would have time to present themselves overall and then bicker amongst themselves about the merits and detractors of their proposals.

I go back and forth on this. Yes, a shorter election season seems to be the way it should work (and it works well in the UK and other countries). Then again, our thorough vetting of candidates over a year and a half has, at times, been beneficial in weeding out the bad apples.

True, it has. However, are the negatives of an 18 month circus really worth the occasional positive? Just a point to consider. I don't know the answer, and I seriously doubt anyone could, unless we try a different model to see how it would play out. I'm not sure it is worth the risk to attempt it though...

 

[GaryDog]

What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?

I guess the answer to that depends on how one feels about a candidate having to earn name recognition through their own efforts vs. being given it by dint of being permitted to participate in the debates.

I think if I had my way, the election announcements would be made a month before the first debate, the party primaries held two weeks later (yes, everyone just has to haul out and vote or the parties decide among their leaderships), the conventions in the next week, followed by a week of "stumping," and then the first debate itself would become the first time anyone sees the candidates on a level playing field. I'd also make the debates span two or three evenings so that each candidate would have time to present themselves overall and then bicker amongst themselves about the merits and detractors of their proposals.

I go back and forth on this. Yes, a shorter election season seems to be the way it should work (and it works well in the UK and other countries). Then again, our thorough vetting of candidates over a year and a half has, at times, been beneficial in weeding out the bad apples.

True, it has. However, are the negatives of an 18 month circus really worth the occasional positive? Just a point to consider. I don't know the answer, and I seriously doubt anyone could, unless we try a different model to see how it would play out. I'm not sure it is worth the risk to attempt it though...

Agreed, if you force me to pick, I pick a 6-week election season. I'm sick of the cash grab it has become. It's infected our government.