On December 23, the Federal Election Commission posted all the comments it received, on the proposal to alter regulations concerning general election presidential debates. Use this link to see the comments. After clicking the link, choose “2014”. Then choose “2014-06”, the proposal to alter 11 CFR 110.13(c).
The only commenter who opposes the petition is the attorney for the Commission on Presidential Debates, Lewis K. Loss. Loss’s 7-page comment criticizes specific details of Level the Playing Field, the group that asked the FEC to revise the rules. Level the Playing Field’s own preferred idea for general election presidential debates is for the candidate who submits the most signatures to get on the ballot, by April 30, to also be invited into the presidential debates. There is much to criticize about the specific preference of Level the Playing Field.
However, the attorney for the Commission on Presidential Debates fails to engage the more far-reaching arguments of Level the Playing Field, and many other commenting groups and individuals, that the status quo is unacceptable and harmful to the nation. The key arguments against the status quo are in the comments by Professors Larry Diamond and David King. Among the individual comments, the comment of Jason Sneed is especially compelling. He writes, “I can’t conceive of a more ludicrous situation than to put four seeds in a contest to see which one grows best, and to only give two of those seeds soil, water and light. It truly is no different with presidential elections. Without any opportunity to debate the other candidates and be seen, there is no way to legitimately expect polling numbers to improve.”
Most commenters who express an opinion seem to prefer inviting all candidates who are on the ballot in states containing a majority of electoral votes to be invited into the general election presidential debates. In all U.S. history, there has never been a presidential election with more than seven presidential candidates who were on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral vote. For the years before there were government-printed ballots, this statement still stands. In the years before government-printed ballots, one can modify the statement to say there was no presidential election with more than 7 candidates who prepared privately-printed ballots with presidential elector candidates in states containing a majority of electoral college votes.
Some commenters pointed out that the status quo depends on polls that don’t even include any presidential candidates except the two major party nominees, so obviously those polls aren’t helpful. David Blau comments that the Commission must stop relying on such polls.
The Kentucky Libertarian Party and Ken Moellman commented that if the current policy is maintained, at least debate moderators should always inform viewers that the two invited candidates are not the only presidential candidates, and the moderators should never refer to the two invited candidates as “the candidates”.
