On September 16, Purple Strategies released a Virginia 2013 gubernatorial poll. The poll was conducted by phone and internet. For phone users, the respondents did not receive a phone call from a human researcher, but from an interactive electronic system of communication. The respondent was only offered the choice of the Democratic nominee, the Republican nominee, or “not sure.” It was impossible for the respondent to express any choice beyond those three. The same was true for the respondents who answered the poll via computer.
The results: Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe 43%, Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli 38%, “not sure” 19%. The “not sure” category is unusually high for a high-profile race this close to the election, so that probably indirectly suggests a relatively large percentage for Rob Sarvis, the third choice on the ballot. One would think polling companies would want to know how much support Sarvis is receiving. If he did receive 10%, the Libertarian Party would become a ballot-qualified party in Virginia for the first time, and would be automatically on the ballot in 2014 as well as 2015 and 2016. That would be the first time Virginia had had a ballot-qualified third party since the period 1994-1997, something that ought to be interesting to general readers who care about politics and government.
Apparently Rasmussen has said they will include Sarvis in the future, thankfully. It’s ridiculous that most polling firms keep insisting on publishing inaccurate polls not featuring all ballot-qualified candidates:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/bart-hinkle/hinkle-one-candidate-is-focused-on-issues/article_2d6dc94b-683a-5175-ac8e-cf9955eaced8.html
As we saw in the one inclusive poll in this race, the major-party candidates’ numbers can be quite different when a strong third-party candidate is included in the poll. Here both of the major-party candidates have serious flaws, and you would think that the polling companies would want to get the right answer. If Sarvis does well in the election, they might be embarrassed for having excluded him.
In Maryland we’ve had good success in getting our minor-party candidates included in the broadcast debates, although MD is much more of a party-line voting state than VA is, so they often don’t do very well. One trick is to get the candidate who’s expected to benefit the most (in this case McAuliffe) to agree not to participate in any debate unless all of the ballot-qualified candidates are invited. They can look like they’re taking the high road by being inclusive, and it’s always good when self-interest coincides with doing the right thing.
^^Right on. MacAuliffe has not yet made that kind of demand, but when asked about one debate, he said he was open to debating Sarvis, whether or not Cuccinelli (the GOP candidate) would debate him. Unfortunately the organizers of that debate, the AARP and LWV, canceled it anyway because Cuccinelli refused to attend, saying AARP and LWV were too partisan, and Sarvis did not meet their 15% polling requirement.
There are many potential debate sponsors, and some of them are inclusive and some are not. But there are few candidates, so that’s the best route to try.
Yeah I imagine in Maryland it’s a bit easier since there a fewer truly competitive elections, so the frontrunners (usually Democrats) probably feel more comfortable debating anyone who’s willing, am I right?
It works both ways. In 2006 we had a Green Party nominee for US Senate, so we went through the Republican and got him to insist on inclusive debates, and the Democrat was forced to agree to it if he wanted any debates at all, which he did. And also, the Republican was an empty suit so he benefited from having to talk only 1/3 of the time, instead of 1/2. But of course we didn’t tell him that.
The key is to use Game Theory analysis. Rank the preferred outcomes for each candidate (2-way, 3-way, or no debates), and that will tell you which major-party candidate to approach with your proposal. In the 2010 governor’s race we failed to get inclusive debates because both of the major-party nominees had 2-way debates as their most preferred outcome.
I should add that for a third-party candidate, the rank order of preferred outcomes is generally 3-way debates, then no debates, then 2-way debates. No debates is preferred over 2-way debates because if they hold debates and you’re not in them, then your stature is diminished.
The analysis can be extended when there are more than three candidates on the ballot. It’s a bit more complicated, but the method is the same.
Makes sense. The problem here is Cuccinelli has basically demonstrated a willingness to have major debates canceled, so if McAuliffe demands a 3-way debate, Cuccinelli would probably just walk. Then we may have a cancelled debate, or, possibly, a McAuliffe-Sarvis debate. McAuliffe has said he would be open to that, but when push comes to shove who knows. The debate host might even cancel then.
Thanks for the strategy insight though!