Mike Allen at Politico via Ballot Access News:
Top officials from past presidential campaigns have quietly formed a group to push for major changes in the general election debates, with recommendations expected by late spring.
[…]
Members include the longtime lead debate negotiator for each party: Bob Bauer for Democratic nominees and Ben Ginsberg for the Republicans. So the Annenberg Working Group on Presidential General Election Debates could have a profound effect on the signature fall events of the race for the White House. The group’s co-chairs were top debate-prep advisers to each of the 2012 nominees: Anita Dunn for President Obama, and Beth Myers for Mitt Romney.
The group is sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, debate expert and the center’s director, leads the study.
[…]
The group has been talking with the Commission on Presidential Debates about the study’s intentions, and plans to meet next month with the commission’s co-chairmen, Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, and the executive director, Janet H. Brown. The group also plans a session with people who represent the view of non-major parties, to discuss third-party and independent candidates.
Emphasis added.
They could probably get 15% polling. So why would they need this?
Including the Green Party and Libertarian Party – as noted above, the only other two real nationwide parties in the U.S. – Including Greens and Libertarian nominees in the debates would have one very likely result. Major figures in American public life would seek the Green Party, or Libertarian Party nominations. It is just common sense, if for no other reason than the benefits the Green Party and the Libertarians provide with ballot access. Add to that TV debates with the two larger parties, and you have just created a total of four major parties in the U.S. That would be a very healthy and positive result for our country, and our political system. It would likely also greatly grow the economy with the sensible proposals of the Libertarian and Green Party candidates gaining wider audience.
I’d like to know more details on that rather than guess.
Probably whoever wants Bloomberg or Trump to run. They can be the “alternative” view.
Why five and not four or six or ten? And what about independents?
BTW I am wondering who will be chosen to represent alternative parties and independents at these negotiations, and how.
Give the voters a real choice, include the top five parties based on national voter registration.
I think most of us here would agree, but since we have to negotiate with people who are more powerful than us, a halfway measure may be better than nothing.
I concur with Jed and I wanted to make that same point. If a candidate can mathematically secure election via the electoral college, they debate commission should be required to include said candidate in the debates.
Of course this would also lead to Democrats and the GOP fighting Libertarians and Greens even more to challenge petitions and deny access.
That would be even better.
Personally I think if you’re on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical, mathematical shot at winning you should be included in all 4 debates (3 presidential + 1 vice presidential).
That would be at least an improvement over what has been happening.
I think there could be reasonable standards for the debates that would provide access, but also prevent it from being a giant perpetual circus.
For example, the first round of debates could be between all candidates who are on enough state ballots that they could mathematically win the presidency.
For the second debate you must meet the criteria for the first debate, plus have 5% in a national poll which include all candidates. (meaning that even the Rs and Ds must meet this criteria of having been ranked in a poll including all candidates, therefore polls including all candidates must be run)
For the third debate you could raise the bar to 15% or be leading in enough polls in enough states to represent 15% or more electoral votes.
As just some examples.
Yeah, although the Constitution Party is borderline. They were on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning in past elections. In 2012 they fell just short due to the inept and lackluster campaign of Virgil Goode, along of course with the many capricious, outragous, byzantine and bizarre ballot access laws around the country.
Thanks for story. It should be standard operating procedure in US national elections that the Green Party and Libertarian Party nominees are included in the debates. The Green Party and the Libertarians are the only other two truly national parties in our nation.