On May 11, the Commission on Presidential Debates filed this amicus curiae brief in Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, 1:15cv-1397. This is one of the two pending cases over the rules for qualifying for the general election presidential debates.
The brief says that there are “scores” of presidential candidates every presidential election year. This is a phony point, because no one is challenging the CPD rule that says invited candidates must be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win. in the entire history of the United States, there has never been a presidential election with more than seven candidates who had enough candidates for presidential elector to theoretically win. In 2012 there were only four such candidates.
The brief also that the purpose of the federal campaign laws is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. The plaintiffs agree. The question, which the CPD completely ignores, is whether the large for-profit corporations who fund the Commission on Presidential Debates are currying favor with the two major party presidential candidates by their funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
history of the ROT in Prez so-called debates.
ABOLISH THE TIME BOMB ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Uniform definition of Elector.
NONPARTISAN elections of all elected executive officers and all judges —
even and especially SCOTUS folks.
Demo Rep you understand that what you propose would take about 30 constitutional amendments, right?
So being on the ballot in enough states to be able to win a majority of electoral votes is also already a condition for CPD inclusion, eh? Actually, even that might be more restrictive than necessary. Especially if there are more than two tickets meeting that “majority standard”, any other party could argue they have access to enough ballots to win at least 1/4 of the electoral votes — which is enough to guarantee their Presidential ticket a spot in the House of Representatives if nobody gets an absolute majority. The House picks from the top three, after all, and if Presidential Ticket X has 1/4 of the votes there’s no way more than two other tickets can get ahead of Ticket X. For example:
total Electoral College votes: 538
1/4 of total (rounded up): 135
Ticket A 136 electoral votes
Ticket B 136 electoral votes (minimum to be ahead of Ticket X)
Ticket X 135 electoral votes
total of the above three tickets: 407 electoral votes
total remaining for any other ticket(s): 131 electoral votes
Even if Tickets A, B, and X all have 135 each, that still only leaves 133 for Ticket Y [et al].
So even the “majority standard” is more restrictive than it absolutely needs to be.