CS Monitor on Exclusion of 3rd Party Candidates from Debates
I find some of these numbers to be quite interesting. CSM tells us that Commission on Presidential Debates is crediting Johnson with polling at 8.4% and Stein at 3.2%, neither of them making the 15% benchmark.
Democracy served? No Gary Johnson or Jill Stein at first debate
Three out of five Americans want to see a third-party candidate at the debates, as The Christian Science Monitor’s Lucy Schouten reported in August. The interest in third-party candidates is largely driven by dislike of the two major-party candidates and a distaste for the political polarization that seems to have dominated this election cycle.
Support for third-party candidates is particularly high among voters in some swing states. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that almost one in four Ohio voters planned to vote for a third-party candidate, or were uncertain for whom they were going to vote.
If the messages voters hear — or don’t hear — from Johnson and Stein in the next seven weeks are decisive in swing states, they could take on a sizable role in the outcome of the election. The votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida may play an important role in determining whether it is Clinton or Trump who takes over the Oval Office come January.
What they don't tell us -given how significant these numbers potentially are- is how to get the Commission to better serve the American voters.
Comments
Can we please come up with a name besides...
Third party candidate?! @can't stop: have you written about this and I missed it? I mean, which one is the third party: "what's an Aleppo?" Or Stein? I think it can be confusing for the deplorables to have 2 individuals vying for one coveted third party spot(are there more?). Is it just me here? PS: not knocking OP for use of the term(obv!), just deploring its use in general.
Good point
I hadn't thought about it, but I think you've made a good point. Using the term "third party" is a way of marginalizing any candidate or party outside of the duopoly. The MSM and the political establishment may do it, but we don't have to follow along and do it, too.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
The media
and everyone else ought to call them by name. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party. They be around long enough to have earned it. If the Communist Party candidate was gaining traction the media wouldn't hesitate to chirp stuff about the dreaded"Communist" party.....
Who gets polled for these
Who gets polled for these polls? I remember at TOP all the diaries with poll numbers. I see some here too. I've also read that they are people with land line phones.
I've never been polled for anything but The Deborah Duncan Show in Houston years ago. A Wendy Davis volunteer called me once after I ordered a sign and bumper sticker. That's it.
In years past I believed poll results. This year, I don't believe any of them.
The polls are rigged just like the primaries were
and now the debates are rigged by blocking Stein and Johnson.
To wit:
Redacted Tonight, Lee Camp - The Polls Are WRONG
Camp: "Johnson is already at 15% and Stein may be close to 15%"
- Polls include less that 17% independents. But independents comprise 42% of voters.
-A CNN poll did not include anyone of ages 18-34. You know, the old Bernie crowd.
Bottom line. The polls are shit and rigged to support their narrative.
Segment starts at 8:18 mark
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Also new poll shows 44% Millennials will vote for a third party
http://fusion.net/story/347468/young-people-third-party-poll/
Now we know why CNN did not include Millennials in its poll.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
See, polls as rigged as Dem primaries
Just like "scientific research" paid for by companies who own the drug or product they want to get to market.
That's why I asked who gets polled.
Rigged, just like when they scan my driver's license, issue me a "code" linked to my name & license, and tell me to type the code into the voting machine.
My vote for Jill probably won't even get registered - it'll probably be changed to Killary since I voted Dem (Bernie) in the rigged primary.
Here, for primaries, we have to either verbally announce D or R, or once they had two tables set up. My brother lives in a different precinct, so drives to a Dem only location, but gets his license scanned, and gets his magic number.
Generals are "secret" except for the magic number.
IMHO
if a candidate/party makes the effort and gets on, say, the ballot of at least 40 states, then they ought to be able to participate. When someone makes this kind of effort they should be taken seriously...
A valid benchmark
Should be argued to expand inclusion.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Perhaps we could petition the League of Women Voters
to host an alt-debate. The current Commission was designed to limit choices and to protect the two party system and LOTE voting, not to inform the population of other "lesser" candidates.
With two historically unpopular major party's candidates, this would be a perfect time to challenge or boycott the current commission and their sham debate.
Hell, the commission might not even have a debate if HRC is not "healthy enough" to stand and talk for a couple of hours. It could happen.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
That's a good suggestion
Sounds like a good topic for a petition (which I suppose is a 'poll' of sorts).
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Offer to help fund a LOWV debate by $27 donations
If they'd agree to try, fund a debate by We the People. In fact, you could even call it the "We the People Debate." Although, it might be more accurate to call it the "Wee the People Debate," since since the desires of regular folks seem to have scant bearing on this debate business.
If the League of Women Voters managed to get an inclusive debate together in this short amount of time, I'm sure Trump would show, which might force Hillary's hand.
Which network could we get to air it?
Hmm ... network .... hmmm
Yeah, you're right. Who would have the guts to do it?
Let's see - they're all capitalists willing to cut each others throats for a nickel... Willing to air complete crap like Honey Boo Boo (if that's the name of it) and the Duck Doofus show...
I'm betting it would be fought over, but probably little luck getting the handful of broadcast networks on-board. But, stranger things have happened. If it's going to happen, it needs to be in the works - like yesterday.
That's an excellent idea!
Presidential "Debates" NEED to be put back into the hands of the League of Women Voters!!
Just yesterday, my husband and I were talking about how Johnson and Stein will not be allowed on the stage, and how that would not have been the case if the League of Women Voters was still in charge. Our conversation got me motivated to join my local LWV.
Go to LWV.org and find your local chapter.
"Stand Up! Keep Fighting!" - Paul Wellstone
Before y'all get too excited, the LOWV didn't want to be
involved any more. They thought/think that the debates are a "fraud" and a "hoodwinking" because the candidates won't do it unless their demands are met, making the debates lack substance. http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
But they're apparently trying to step back up this year
although they're still not happy about the debates in general.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
You are all correct. Time to take on the Big Two now.
The duopoly exists by inertia and MSM. Maybe League of Women Voters can be convinced. Historically more disinterested. A new sponsor--who?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
How about Our Revolution?
Since Bernie (and his deal with DNC) ostensibly aren't running the organization they could sponsor and use their database of Bernie donors.
Unless OR is actually yet another front for the duopoly.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
I've thought about your question for several minutes now...
and can't come up with a good suggestion. Shows how weak our institutional structures are.
RT channel
We could petition RT to do a debate. I know they have a limited viewing audience but at least there would be a debate for the record. Ed Schultz and Larry King are on RT along with my favorite, Lee Camp, who is a strong Bernie supporter. I'm going to send them an email. Here's the info.
Online Projects
E-mail: feedback@rttv.ru
Note: RT stands for Russia Today. It started in 2005 and now is in every major country. The beauty of this would be if the Clinton campaign would start screaming about the Russians meddling in our politics. This would only draw attention to it....
Why not, indeed! Oh, the irony!
First we have to rely on the Russkies to give us Medusa's emails. Now we have to rely on Russia Today to give us a meaningful presidential debate.
Democracy Now, The Real News Network, TeleSure, Truth Dig...
are some others.
Not that any of them getting a huge viewership.
Speaking of the deabates
I confess I donated $1 to Trump ($3 to Hillary) and I just received this poll from the Trump campaign;
https://action.trump2016.com/debate-prep-survey/?utm_medium=email&utm_ca...
It is very illustrative of his stance.
The political revolution continues
No questions about climate change requested. Bah, humbug!