On September 11, 2014, Level the Playing Field asked the Federal Election Commission to issue regulations that would alter how presidential candidates gain access to general election debates. In response, the FEC invited members of the public to comment on the idea. That comment period ran from November 18 through December 15, so comments are now closed. Here is a link to the FEC notice, which includes a link to Level the Playing Field’s proposal. Level the Playing Field’s proposal contains a wealth of data showing that the status quo policy is not good policy.
Here is Fairvote’s analysis of the proposal.
In January, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are likely to file a federal lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Both of them are seeking the nomination of their parties for president in 2016.
This is some progress. The signature option/requirement is a tentative step in the right direction, but I agree with Fairvote that more needs to happen.
If the signature requirement is to be used, it should be on the basis of a reasonable threshold instead whichever third party gets the most signatures, as requiring third parties such as the Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionals, as well as independents, to compete in that manner just to get into the debate would further divide them and lessen the electorate’s exposure to different points of view (one wonders if that is the intent there and Fairvote’s missing the bigger picture…). Johnson and Stein’s likely lawsuit might be a good way to get the FEC to give more ground.
As for the percentage requirement suggested by Fairvote, 5% might be doable, but a lot then depends on media coverage, as third parties and independents, especially the Greens, often don’t have a huge advertising budget. To that extent I think some sort of Fairness Doctrine needs to be brought back for election news coverage, so at the very least news organizations have to mention that other candidates exist or mention a source where people can find out what other candidates are in the race.
I figured Jill Stein was likely going to be the Green Party’s nominee again (she was awesome, so the saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” applies here), but Gary Johnson’s also looking to be re-nominated? Interesting. With two fairly strong candidates and a national electorate that is getting increasingly hostile to the Democrats and Republicans (even if many voters’ solution seems to be not voting at the moment), I think both the Libertarian and Green Parties will each get at least 1% or more of the vote in 2016. It’d be great if enough voters woke up that they both got 5%, but who knows at this point.
I wish I had known about that comment period, I would have submitted some comments of my own to the FEC.