The nonprofit Free and Equal Elections Foundation announced on Wednesday that three out of seven invited candidates have confirmed their participation in its fourth presidential debate, set to take place in late October.
In a press release, the Foundation revealed that its fourth debate will be held on October 23 in Los Angeles, California. It will be moderated by Christina Tobin, founder of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, alongside former U.S. Comptroller General and No Labels Co-founder David Walker. Current announced debate sponsors include Joe from Texas, We Vote Foundation, TOGETHER!, and Good Ancestor.
Earlier in September, the Foundation shared a promotional video indicating that it had invited seven presidential candidates to participate in the debate. The list included Chase Oliver of the Libertarian Party, Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, Randall Terry of the Constitution Party, Claudia De la Cruz of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Donald Trump of the Republican Party, Kamala Harris of the Democratic Party, and independent candidate Dr. Cornel West.
Of the seven, Oliver, Stein, and Terry have agreed to return, with the Foundation still awaiting confirmation from the others. The three candidates had previously participated in Free and Equal’s third debate, which was held as part of Freedom Fest.
“Americans are feeling disenfranchised across the political spectrum and even new and potential voters feel oppressed by the current system,” Tobin stated in the release. “There are more independent voters than democrats and republicans. They want to hear from more voices, and our debates provide a platform for candidates to engage in meaningful, substantive, and uncensored discussions.”
As with its previous debates, Free and Equal will stream the event across multiple media platforms, including Rumble, CiVL, and Scripps News, with C-SPAN also broadcasting the debate. Additionally, public voting for home and live viewers will once again take place through Free and Equal’s Assistant Blockchain Beta Application, which will utilize ranked-choice voting.
It’s the candidates listed in the article that qualify under one or the other. Oliver and Stein qualify through EVs and Terry and West have been occasionally included in polls. West decided not to attend. It says DeLaCruz was invited also, so she must have been included in a poll, although I don’t remember that happening. Kennedy qualified but isn’t really running anymore, and obviously Trump and Harris aren’t interested. No other candidates qualify under either standard.
If they were to require enough electoral votes to possibly win and one or 2% in a poll anywhere, then she would have a pretty much empty stage. She can’t sell tickets if there’s no clown show at the circus.
On for enough electors to have a mathematical chance of winning or a percentage in a poll somewhere , 1 or 2%. Either one qualifies.
I am curious about just one thing. Yes, I understand that there are absolutely some limits like polling percentages that are completely unfair. And where do you draw the line? Is itbone state? two states? five states? 50+ DC?
And while they are small, Liberal party USA does have a candidate for president. Tobin has a history. I remember when she was selling snake oil to the LP to try to get them to give her money. Why didn’t she invite LPUSA? That to me is the important question.
I have chatted several times with the LPUSA Candidate, and I’ve seen things written about her. She would clearly be one of the rational adults in the room.
Yell, not tell.
Since write in votes are a thing, why limit it to just candidates who made a state ballot? In my state, there’s no write in registration. Everyone is a candidate. Just open up an unlimited conference call and make it a contest for who can tell the loudest or hit the speak button the fastest.
Is it certain that de la Cruz isn’t attending, or has she merely not confirmed whether she is yet?
–
Based Elon is based. Though oftentimes a leftist turd, he truly is the best thing that ever happened to Twatter. Good on him; more power to him.
–
Per the notoriously “unbiased and well-sourced” communist wikipedophiles, Terry has access to 181 electors in 19 states – or without write-ins, to 133 electors in 12 states.
They also chose to link this comedy gem at the bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_efforts_to_disrupt_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
The talk page and edit history are equally hilarious, and naturally there is no corresponding article for the other half of the uniparty doing even far more to disrupt the elections… Good stuff.
–
Candidates who are only on one ballot should be included in the debate, if there is space and if they want to. The line should be drawn at however many candidates the organizers think the debate can fit, starting with those for who the largest number of people have expressed intent to vote, until the debate is full.
I see less point in debating a candidate who is not on enough ballots to even have a theoretical chance at winning an election. Where should the line be drawn? Should candidates who are only on one ballot be included in the debate?
Andy- I am surprised you would complain about this. Free and Equal should be just that… free and equal. Once you start putting restrictions on who can participate then it devolves into the same nonsense as the “big debates” such as polling numbers and lots of other factors designed to keep people OUT of debates.
I am all for debates, but Randall Terry’s ballot access is terrible. I am not sure if he even has ballot access in 15 states. Chase Oliver and Jill Stein are on enough ballots to have a tgeorectical chance at winning the election.
Should candidate who are not on enough ballots to win the election be included in this debate?
Not sure why de la Cruz isn’t attending. But, since my main Twitter account is frozen due to Elmo Musk trying to ban ANYTHING related to Ken Klippenstein from Twitter, I can’t find out there. I’ll email; I’m on their campaign mailing list.
As for Klippenstein and the Vance docs allegedly hacked by Iran? https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2024/09/looks-like-i-wont-be-on-twitter-any-more.html
This is the debate equivalent of the NIT basketball tournament. No one watches except the families of the teams involved.
I know that the two duopoly candidates wont dip their toe in these waters, but i hope that De la Cruz and West have the courage to join the fray. The public deserves to see the options available interacting on a range of issues. It would also be good to see the political spectrum represented widened to the left some.