The June 20 Washington Post has this op-ed by Theresa Amato, making the point that inclusive debates can dramatically alter the fortunes of candidates who do substantially better than expected. Amato was campaign manager for Ralph Nader in both 2000 and 2004. Nader, of course, was never permitted to participate in general election presidential debates with his major party opponents. In the United States, inclusive presidential debates in the primary season, for major party contenders, is routine. But somehow, when general election debates are being held, suddenly the media and powerful political figures declare that having more than two candidates in the debate is distracting and not in the public interest. Thanks to Oliver Hall for the link.
Unless a third party has the money of Perot we won’t see 3 or 4 parties debating on the presidential stage. Why not make it easy and say any candidate on the ballot in all 50 states should be invited to the debates. Would the Americans Elect party have enough money and 50 state access to achieve that goal of getting into the debates, depending on who the nominee is?
I agree, RJ. Let more inclusive debates begin!
Will any corporate “persons” be running for president this cycle? I say include them in the debates, too.
Pingback: Washington Post Carries Op-Ed on Importance of Inclusive Debates | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Debates should include anyone on enough ballots to theoretically be elected president (i.e. 270 electoral votes) which, of course, does not require every state.
Bit of historical trivia: in 1964 Lyndon Johnson was not on the ballot in Alabama and almost missed Louisiana.
#5 One does not need 270 electoral votes to become president, nor does a candidate need to be on the ballot to receive electoral votes. Not all States require pledged presidential elector slates (eg California), so you would have to include anyone and everyone who is interested in participating in the debate.
6 –
I’m interested in participating in the debate!
#5 My point was meant as a contrast to #1 who’s criteria of 50 state ballot access for entrance to the debates I thought was too stringent.
#8 Right now candidates have to poll over 15% I believe. That’s stringent. At least 50 state access shows some nation wide support rather then just getting on say 38 ballots which may in theory get you the magic 270 votes to get elected. We should be getting rid of the commission on presidential debates.
I think that getting on enough ballots equal or greater than 210 Electoral Votes is a good criteria. Damn, it would be interesting if the Electoral Votes were allocated via a double pro-rata system: first stage, allocating all electoral votes per state and a second stage allocating remaining electoral votes with unused and surplus votes!
I meant 270 Electoral Votes, sorry about that!