On June 24, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback was asked whether he would agree to inclusive general election debates, if he becomes the Republican nominee. He expressed fear that there would be too many candidates, and said he would need to think about it. This occurred in Roland, Iowa. Thanks to Larry Reinsch for having raised this issue with Senator Brownback. Reinsch is also the person who asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama the same question earlier this month.
It should be noted that in all U.S. history, there has never been a presidential general election with more than 7 presidential candidates who were theoretically able to be elected. Specifically, there has never been an election with more than 7 presidential candidates who were on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral college.
There were no government-printed ballots before 1889, so for the elections before then, this statement refers to the ability of various presidential candidates to circulate private ballots. There were never more than 7 such candidates in that period either. In the period 1856 to the present, the average number of presidential candidates who could theoretically have been elected has only been 4.3 candidates.
If a candidate for president has got at least 45 ballots (go ahead and count D.C.) they should be able to take part in the debates.
Depending on which States, it’s possible for someone on 21 ballots to have enough potential EV’s to get a majority.
I think the percentage in the polls is the way to go, not ballot access. If it’s ballot access, then people will be working hard to get on in 21… or 45 or whatever number of states, because it gives you free access to a stage in front of a hundred million people to say anything you want to the next President.
If the requirement is ballot access, then ballot access laws will tighten up in response.
To debate, you should have to demonstrate 3% support in repeated national polls. Same way it is now, but lower the 15% mark to a pretty reasonable 3%. Nader would have been able to debate in 2000…. Perot in 1996. And heck, maybe Harry Browne or Pat Buchanan would have squeezed into some debates.
But the polls are the problem. They are too easy to manipulate and once again it puts the power in the hands of the media and press . I think ballot access is a very good way to use. Getting on the ballot in that many states is no small task and if they are on there for the people to vote for then we have RIGHT as voters to hear what they have to say .
I do worry that Austin is right, though, and that making ballot access the criterion would cause states to tighten up on ballot access. Plus, ballot access can be “bought” a little easier than polling strength; e.g. the Natural Law Party never had more than negligible support, but its supporters tended to be wealthy and generous, so it was able to procure ballot access.
I like the proposals that revolve around polling who the voters want to see in the debates, assuming a neutral organization is willing to pay for a professional poll.
It is hard to be at any percent in the polls when they do not mention your name and if your name is given in response they put you down as undecided. This has actually happened to me when I was running for congress I gave my name in response and they said we will put you down as undecided.
I think that being on the ballot in enough states to win the election is a good standard for presidential debate. I also think that all candidates on the ballot in the state that the debate takes place should be involved.
Someone should inform Snator Brownback that under hs criteria/argument or any other criteria presented by Democrats, Republicans, Presidential Debate Commission, etc. to keep independent and minor parties out of the process. HE should have been barred from participating in the Primary Debates along with 7 of 10 current Democratic candidates and 6 of 10 current Republican candidates.