Level the Playing Field, which supports opening up the general election presidential debates to more candidates, has issued this press release. It points out that if the 15% polling rule were applied to the August 6, 2015 Republican presidential debate, only one candidate, Donald Trump, would qualify.
Another post at Ballot Access News reports:
The Daily Beast has an article on whether general election presidential debates should be open to more candidates. Much of the story focuses on the comments of Leslie C. Francis, a former Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee and also a former Executive Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Francis originally joined in with Level the Playing Field, advocating that the standards be more relaxed. But he says he broke with Level the Playing Field after it filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission to force the FEC to consider changing the federal regulations on debates. Francis is quoted as saying that Level the Playing Field “blew everything up by joining forces with the Greens and the Libertarians.” Francis also says that the Commission on Presidential Debates was “possibly” going to lower the polling threshold from 15% to 10%, and he implies that that possibility is now less likely because the lawsuit was filed.
Francis also warns against “dangerous” presidential candidates qualifying for the debates if the standards are significantly relaxed.
Level the Playing Field has numerous connections to past efforts Unity 08, Unity 12, Americans Elect and also currently as Change the Rule. The last non-duopoly candidate in the COPD debates was Ross Perot in 1992, and there is currently widespread speculation, fed by Mr. Trump himself, that the current Republican presidential frontrunner may run as an independent if he does not become the Republican candidate. Level the Playing Field/Change the Rule has proposed various schemes that would allow just one and one only additional candidate in the debates. Greens and Libertarians have been proposing an alternative plan whereby all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance to win would be in the debates. If the latter standard were applied in the past, the debate stage would have ranged from 4 candidates (as in 2012, when Johnson and Stein would have been the only other candidates to qualify) to a maximum of 7. Tonight’s “main event” Republican debate on Fox will have 10 candidates on stage.
The CPD dam will have to break eventually. Hopefully soon.
Clinton in 1992 also wanted Perot in the debates.
The Daily Beast article in incorrect that Perot met the 15% threshold. First it wasn’t set at 15% yet, and second Perot was included because Bush insisted on it.
The pretentiousness and arrogance of some of the LtPF signers is ridiculous. They want one of their own, an establishment centrist, and anybody else is “dangerous.” I’m glad Ackerman wasn’t afraid to alienate them and refused to accept “maybe” lowering the threshold to 10% as good-enough.
Since 1992, and then Perot’s exclusion in 1996, there two strongest-performing ind/third-party candidates have been Ralph Nader as the Green nominee in 2000 and Gary Johnson (a former Gov.!) running as a Libertarian in 2012. If including them is beyond the pale, then who the hell would they want to see included? They never say, just vague unspecified “an independent.” You know, a right-thinking independent who agrees with them and is impeccably establishment, a billionaire who can buy his way onto the ballot with minimal real support. Just, you know, not *that* billionaire, the one currently running as a Republican.
But the actual third- and fourth-largest parties who have a lengthy history of real grassroots support and meeting the ballot access threshold? The prospect horrifies them.
Top Two? Who needs Top Two? We now have Top One! Far more efficient.