Federal election law requires that debate sponsors, for candidates for federal office, must have objective criteria when they decide whom to invite. Generally debate sponsors rely on polls.
California’s U.S. Senate race on June 7, 2016, has 34 candidates on the ballot. Broadcast stations and newspapers have sponsored two U.S. Senate debates, on at the University of the Pacific in Stockton on April 25, and one at San Diego State University on May 10. Both debates invited only five particular candidates: Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez, Ron Unz, Duf Sundheim, and Tom Del Beccaro. The debate sponsors relied on a poll. However, that poll, the California Poll, only asked about those five particular candidates. Nothing was said to respondents about any of the other candidates.
But, since then, Political Data Incorporated has released a poll that lists all 34 candidates. The results are contained in an article by Paul Mitchell in the May 13, 2016 issue of Political Pulse. The poll was on-line. It is almost impossible to have a poll conducted by telephone that mentions as many as 34 candidates.
The results are shocking, because the top five candidates in the poll that mentioned all the candidates are not the same five candidates who were invited into the media debates. The results: Harris 24.4%; Sanchez 7.1%; Phil Wyman 3.2%; Greg Conlon 2.6%; Unz 2.1%; Sundheim 1.2%; Lightfoot 1.2%; Del Beccaro 1.1%; George Yang 1.0%; Massie Munroe .8%; Karen Roseberry .8%; Tom Palzer .7%; Pamela Elizondo .7%; Von Hougo .6%; Jerry Laws .6%; Herb Peters .4%; Don Krampe .4%; Mark Matthew Herd .4%; Emory Rodgers .3%; Steve Stokes .3%; Clive Gray .3%; Ling Ling Shi .3%; President Cristina Grappo .1%; Jarrell Williamson .1%; Mike Beitiks .1%; Tim Gildersleeve .1%; Jason Hanania .1%; Jason Kraus .1%; Paul Merritt .1%; Gar Myers .1%; John T. Parker .0%; Eleanor Garcia .0%; Don Grundmann .0%; Scott A. Vineberg .0%.
The United Coalition is pleased to be working with the Top Two candidates Pamela Elizondo [Green] and Mark Herd [Libertarian]. Nobody has it as good as the United Coalition.
This just goes to show you how biased polling criteria for debate inclusion really is. Polls can be made to say anything just by phrasing the questions in a way to illicit the desired response. Want only certaain candidates in the debate? Only mention those candidates. Win!
Here is a message that I posted in Facebook on May 15, 2016: “Well, I mailed my ballot yesterday afternoon and Representative Loretta Sanchez received my vote (along with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, of course). Both California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and Rep. Sanchez are very excellent candidates for United States Senator and I am formally endorsing each. However, when voting, we are limited to one choice. I think that this is the right time for Ms. Sanchez. Consequently, my vote went to her. She is the woman of the hour and is really ready to be our newest Senator from the Golden State!”
There is a link to a version of the poll here.
http://capitolweekly.net/ca120-mystery-unknowns-california-senate/
Search for the block:
“We’ve created a version of our polling survey which combines both the long and short form of the U.S. Senate race, and a number of other polling tidbits. You can take the survey here.”
Even this poll is very unfair since it does not permit write-ins.
For the short form (5 candidates) 34.5% said that they were unsure. When all candidates were listed, this increased to 48.4%.
They should record short one-on-one debates between all pairs of candidates (perhaps 30 minutes total). Then a view could view a set of the debates and ask which candidate they preferred in each. The top performing candidates would continue on.
The FIRST Amdt is DEAD regarding who gets invited to so-called debates ???
One more case for SCOTUS.