Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regulations require a debate sponsor to make its candidate selection decisions on the basis of "pre-established, objective" criteria. After a thorough and wide-ranging review of alternative approaches to determining who is invited to participate in the general election debates it will sponsor, the CPD adopted on October 28, 2015 its 2016 Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria. Under the 2016 Criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.
I personally think the 15% threshold is too high. I think it should be 5%, at most. In all fairness, there should be 1-2 "kiddie table" debates with the top 3-4 non-major party candidates, who are on X number of state ballots, so people get a chance to meet the viable candidates. That is a reform we should all be pushing for to end the two party stranglehold.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regulations require a debate sponsor to make its candidate selection decisions on the basis of "pre-established, objective" criteria. After a thorough and wide-ranging review of alternative approaches to determining who is invited to participate in the general election debates it will sponsor, the CPD adopted on October 28, 2015 its 2016 Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria. Under the 2016 Criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.
I personally think the 15% threshold is too high. I think it should be 5%, at most. In all fairness, there should be 1-2 "kiddie table" debates with the top 3-4 non-major party candidates, who are on X number of state ballots, so people get a chance to meet the viable candidates. That is a reform we should all be pushing for to end the two party stranglehold.
This and I concur. It was raised to 15%, because it's a nearly impossible # for a third party to reach - limiting the national debates to only the establishment parties.
Why do we even need Electoral only use is to break ties and elect the dominating power to Presidency.
Electoral just ensures that low populated states have some say in who wins. Without it - politicians could potentially just campaign in the high populated states solely and still win the overall vote.
That being said - the current election system could use reform, as it currently sits - the majority party in the house and senate pick the Pres. and VP essentially, if 270 electoral votes are not reach by any candidate. So without having put much research/analysis into it - I can't offer up a solution just yet for the house and senate piece...but that's where I think reform should target.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
