Zak Cruise Carter: 4 Point Plan to Damage Commission on Presidential Debates in 2016 and Make Green Party a Major Contender

I was sent the following note via the message funtion on Facebook.  I thought Mr. Carter made some good points, and decided to share this with IPR readers.  I don’t know much about Zak Cruise Carter , besides what I’ve read on Facebook.

Greetings Jill! Thanks for sending the friend request! Since you write for IPR, you might like this –

Free and Equal Elections Foundation hosted the 2012 “3rd Party” Presidential debates that were moderated by Larry King and Thom Hartmann and viewed by an estimated global audience of 20 million people. I’ve left Free & Equal, but I have even bigger plans moving forward. I don’t believe that one organization should ever have control of the presidential debates, even the open ones.

4 Point Plan to Damage the Commission on Presidential Debates in 2016 and make the Green Party a Major Contender.

1 – Hosting the debates in LA and NYC. While I got lucky with helping to bring Larry King in to moderate the Chicago debate, I wasn’t so lucky in DC. While Thom Hartmann is well known, he’s not nearly as big as the names who were interested in moderating the 2nd debate had we been in LA or NYC. Larry King generated incredible amounts of press for that debate, and I plan on bringing in more names the entire country knows and cameras can’t help but follow to moderate the debates in 2016. (Both Jon Stewart and Phil Donahue were interested if we had been in NYC, as were Ricki Lake and Martin Sheen had we been in LA.)

2 – Two tiers of sponsors. Our second tier sponsors will expand on the 57 media and organization sponsors F&E had for the 2012 debates. These sponsors paid nothing, but reported on the debates and helped spread word of them. The first tier sponsors will be the real game changer in 2016 – organizations and companies that will sponsor us financially, enabling us to then take that money to the networks to run promotional ads in addition to broadcasting our debates. RT America, Al Jazeera, Free Speech TV,, Link TV and CSPAN all broadcast the 2012 debates, and I’m going to work hard to get at least one of the major networks to join that list in 2016.

3 – In the summer of 2012 a handful of Gary Johnson supporters were able to get through to 2 companies and 1 organization (Phillips, BBH New York and the YWCA) that had been sponsors of the CPD’s debates and educate them about their debates being closed. I was late on the ball in trying to bring them on as sponsors of the debates in 2012, but I plan on really promoting this approach in 2016 to starve the CPD of their sponsorship dollars, and doing all we can to welcome these companies and orgs on as sponsors of the open debates. If we can get just one of these companies to sponsor them, it will create an opportunity for a national news story.

4 – At least 8 to 10 debates. We’ll start the 2016 debates late spring/early summer, and space them out so that the last one takes place right before the CPD’s debates start. Last year viewers could vote online for their favorites, and I plan on expanding that to voting via text message, with one candidate going home after every debate until 2 are left at the last debate. The plan is to create demand for the candidates to be included in the CPD’s debates. If they don’t allow them to their debate, the American people will become very aware of the fraud, and we’ll publicly invite the D/R candidates to our platform while we continue hosting debates with our two remaining candidates on the same nights the CPD’s debates are held to include the VP’s. We’ll ignore them just as they’ve ignored us. We also plan for reality TV shows that showcase each of the candidates before the first debate airs.
I really think we can shake things up!

In Liberty, Zak Carter

14 thoughts on “Zak Cruise Carter: 4 Point Plan to Damage Commission on Presidential Debates in 2016 and Make Green Party a Major Contender

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Both Jon Stewart and Phil Donahue were interested if we had been in NYC, as were Ricki Lake and Martin Sheen had we been in LA.”

    Martin Sheen would be interesting, especially if he could be persuaded to grill the candidates while in character as Josiah Bartlett.

  2. mARS

    Interesting. I really enjoyed watching the Chicago debate last year, and I recall live tweeting it. I’d definitely watch debates like this.

  3. Deran

    As far as I can tell Mr. Carter is a libertarian, and former (?) tea partier. I don;t think he is associated at all with the Green Party.

    I like his proposals for 2016. I don’t recall how participation was set for candidates in the Free and Equal debates? Being on enough state ballots to win the EC? That always seemed a reasonable mark to set. I wouldn’t have been opposed to Roseanne Barr being in the debate, or even The Doctor Stevens – for the laughs in his case.

  4. Steven Berson

    @4 – Deran –
    The participation for the initial Free & Equal Debate was determined by the candidate as having either ballot access or official write-in status in enough States to theoretically win the Electoral College. This made the total invited 4 – Gary Johnson, Libertarian; Jill Stein, Green; Virgil Goode, Constitution; Rocky Anderson, Justice.

    The second Free & Equal Debate participation was ironically whittled down to the “top two” from these 4 (ironic because Free & Equal opposes “top two” being implemented in elections!) – done via online ranked choice instant runoff voting. This resulted in Gary Johnson and Jill Stein – who were also the only two candidates who had enough ballot access (without having to add write-in status) to theoretically win the Electoral College.

  5. JD

    Just to be clear, there were actually six invited to the debate. Romney and Obama abstained.

    In reference to debate structure the J.B. Anderson model would allow only those with true ballot acces, in enough states to win the EC, to participate in the debates. The Free and Equal system allowed ballot access and write in status. Those netted 4 and 6 candidates respectively.

    I think perhaps a hybrid of the two would be appropriate. Allow the presidential candidate of all FEC recognized national parties to qualify automatically. That would give 5 candidates to start. Then use the Free and Equal system. I doubt that you would ever have more than 8 candidates.

    Interestingly the 1992 third party debate set the mark at having ballot acces in only 15 states. There were about a dozen candidates invited.

  6. Steven Wilson

    I admire the passion but I must say that 8 to 10 debates will be noise by the fourth debate. The attention span of the American is not Ivy League.

    If you force the voters to “study” for the exam in November, you will extend them beyond their capabilities. Wishful thinking.

    I think 2 debates with specific topics (Domestic; economic, social justice, education) and (International;immigration, free trade, and United nations or wars) should be sufficient for a clear understanding.

    If the candidates or voters want clarity on any topic, then the campaign should address those per domain.

    Debates are the key to selling it. Access to the White House goes through the debates.

  7. Electoral Watch

    @4 — ballot access or official write-in status in enough States to theoretically win the Electoral College.

    Theoretically, one could win the electors of one state, deny the top two candidates an electoral majority, throw the election to the House and win it there as one of the three choices before the House.

    So, why not just have whoever’s on the ballot in California invited to the L.A. debate and invite everyone on the NY ballot to the NYC debate?

  8. Kleptocracy And You

    Wilson at 7, I’m afraid you are locked into the FRAUD that is the Prez Debates. The reason you need 8 to 10 TP Debates is so MAYBE at least one will be seen by MOST voters. When you are relegated to cable/satellite channels the viewership is small. So YES 8 to TEN would be most welcome IMO to hopefully reach over 50 million different voters at some point . A Third Party candidate not only faces the 100s of millions the Ds and Rs have they face over a $100 million in FREE advertisement from the MSM (the KLEPTOVRACY at work to maintain their control).

    Don’t exactly understand how he plans to vote one off each debate unless he starts with 11 or 12 Candidates.

    Starting in Spring is also an excellent idea! I truly wish this endeavor to be a GREAT success !


  9. Richard Winger

    Some of the comments above didn’t accurately explain the rules for getting into the first Free & Equal 2012 presidential debate. Write-in status was not considered. A candidate either had to be on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral college, or to have been at 1% or above in a neutral poll. Rocky Anderson was invited because there was a poll in early 2012 that put him above 1%.

  10. JD

    Richard, that was not what was said on the broadcast. Virgil Goode did not poll above .5% in any national poll that I can think of. Only in Virginia did he poll well yet he was at the debate.

  11. JD

    Plus I doubt anyone who donates to Free and Equal would support a poll based debate qualifier. That is the biggest problem with the CPD.

    Of course everyone was angry about the run off vote. That was not “top-two” though. The system that F&E opposes takes a straight majority vote. F&E used an instant run-off system. They are very different.

    I’m not trying to argue Richard. I’m just pointing out that the qualifier you state was not mentioned by either Christina Tobin or Larry King and it was not posted on the website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *