Reply Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Presidential Debates Case

On February 26, Level the Playing Field filed this reply brief in Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, 20-649. This is the case over whether the Commission on Presidential Debates is violating federal campaign law by excluding all but the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees from the general election debates.


Comments

Reply Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Presidential Debates Case — 4 Comments

  1. Top Six = Level The Playing Field.
    Duverger’s Law artificially promotes two centrist parties while suppressing all others.
    If the six most recent historically significant parties that cover the entire political spectrum had full ballot access, they would have about the following percentage of the vote:
    Green 27%, Constitution 27%, Democratic 17%, Republican 17%, Libertarian 13%, Reform/Alliance x/unknown/variable %.
    With full ballot access all these parties would probably meet or exceed the 15% polling threshold for the debates.
    The four other than the Democratic and Republican could help each other petition for full ballot access.
    The Reform/Alliance party, being a third centrist party would not be sustained long in the duopoly system.
    The Libertarian party with its low polling would be able to win by coalition/alliance with at least one other party. All others could possibly win by plurality on their own.
    This is the essence of Top Six/PLAS/CounterPLAS.

  2. I call for a do-over of the 2020 election including Top Six.
    I hesitate to do that because it would give Trump another bite at the apple.
    However I believe it would be worth it to introduce the American people to genuinely fair and representative elections.
    Also I believe it would be close, but if voters opted for PLAS, Trump would lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.