CDZ Presidential Debates

[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...

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.

Even more than the "cash grab", I am sick of the entitlement mentality that has permeated most all of U.S. politics.

 

[SingleVoyce]

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.

If you're going to base it on the number of states where a candidate is on the ballot, the criteria should be that the candidate is on the ballot of states with a least 270 electoral votes. That way the candidates who are in the debate at least have a mathematical chance of winning.

 

[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.

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.

LOL..."Thorough vetting?" That's what you call the fiasco that is our political process? Let me assure you that while in some folks mind what goes is vetting, there's nothing thorough about it. Thorough vetting is what goes on when my firm identifies senior managers whom we think are ready to join the partnership.

• Review in detail of their roles on all their past assignments, speaking with every partner they worked for and every client project manager.
  • Success --> Obtain demonstrable evidence the pattern of success maintained and built upon.
  • Failures --> Obtain demonstrable evidence the person has learned from them and not repeated the same mistakes.
  • Personal development --> Obtain demonstrable evidence the person has continually developed their skills and expanded their areas of expertise beyond those they had when first becoming part of management.
  • Client/revenue development --> Has the person consistently met and periodically (~25% of the time) exceeded revenue and client acquisition targets?
    • Network --> Has the person the internal and external network needed to generate partner level revenues for at least the next lustrum?
  • Intellectual capital --> Does the person routinely contribute to the firm's intellectual capital? Have they multiple instances of publishing, industry lecturing, service line innovation, management innovation, methodology development/enhancement, etc?
  • Leadership --> Obtain demonstrable evidence of having lead and motivated junior firm members and clients.
  • Firm contributions --> To what extent has the person contributed to the betterment of the firm by leading/innovating successful non-client related initiatives?
• Review in detail of their personal financial position. Candidates must submit either audited personal financial statements (obtained at their own expense) or tax returns.
  • Review in detail of their associations and potential conflicts of interest.
    
    This is very important in that the firm needs to know what its partners are "into," but it's won't generally prohibit a person from being admitted to the partnership.
    
    As for what the impact of having any potential conflicts is, well that's pretty strict and clear. Because my family owns a real estate development and management company, for example, I never undertake projects in the U.S. real estate and construction industry. The closest I get to it is facilitating introductions between my personal contacts there and another partner in the firm. For other partners, it may be a matter that they don't work, just as an example, on Pepsi or Coke projects if they have have material personal holdings in either company. It just keeps things clean and helps to minimize or eliminate any appearance of impropriety or actual improper behavior. (Obviously, the solution for mitigating the risk of apparent and actual impropriety varies from person to person just as it varies among partnerships, or between public organizations and private ones. There is no "one rule fits all," and nobody wants there to be one.)
  • Confirm the candidate has the wherewithal to purchase their initial position in the firm.

Those are just the highlights of the vetting process we use. What's relevant about it is that it doesn't take a year to do it for anyone and the information one needs about a Presidential candidate is about the same information. It doesn't have to be hard information to obtain, but we, the American public, allow candidates to make the process long and arduous. If we were to allow the same degrees of uncertainty in our partner vetting process, we'd either never "mint" new partners or we'd "mint" a bunch of folks who never should have been invited to join, and that would be calamitous for the firm as well as the existing partners.

 

[320 Years of History]

are the negatives of an 18 month circus really worth the occasional positive?

The millions of dollars spent, IMO, is negative enough to not merit it. My suggestion eliminates the need for all that money being collected in the first place, and money not collected/needed is money that doesn't buy influence.

 

[oldsoul]

are the negatives of an 18 month circus really worth the occasional positive?

The millions of dollars spent, IMO, is negative enough to not merit it. My suggestion eliminates the need for all that money being collected in the first place, and money not collected/needed is money that doesn't buy influence.

Agreed, I'm just not convinced we should go that way. I mean without the long drawn out process we have today, who might have been in the debate last night? Would they be better candidates? Worse? I'm not sure I am willing to make that gamble. Something needs to be done, I'm just saying I am not sure what is the better answer.

 

[320 Years of History]

are the negatives of an 18 month circus really worth the occasional positive?

The millions of dollars spent, IMO, is negative enough to not merit it. My suggestion eliminates the need for all that money being collected in the first place, and money not collected/needed is money that doesn't buy influence.

Agreed, I'm just not convinced we should go that way. I mean without the long drawn out process we have today, who might have been in the debate last night? Would they be better candidates? Worse? I'm not sure I am willing to make that gamble. Something needs to be done, I'm just saying I am not sure what is the better answer.

Red:
I can understand that. I'm not 100% committed to the idea myself. But as you say, "something" needs to change about the way we manage and conduct our political/electoral process. Truly, my suggestion is just visionary outline of my first "off the top of my head" idea for a solution or "step in the right direction." I'm sure there are implementable and effective alternatives, but I don't know what they are and I don't recall having seen any of them here, but if any are here, it's surely my own fault for not having seen them.