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.
Do you feel candidates able to have their name on 45 States or more by September should be allowed to participate in Debates? Not include States where name has to be written in.
In addition to, Candidates should not picked by popular vote. Instead by September a final list of Candidates able to achieve 45 States or more are eligible for Electoral votes. In addition to, do you feel winner of the State achieves 2 Electoral votes. Runner up candidates receive 1 Electoral vote. In addition to, if the Candidates party is the Majority Party of the State they'll receive an 1 additional Electoral Vote. Outside of the States the Territory votes count as well.
I think the existing threshold of being on 45 ballots + a polling average of 15%, as set by the Commission on Presidential Debates is fine, and that the CPD does an excellent job of explaining why they chose that threshold. Here are a few snippets from their page, you can read their full statement at http://debates.org/index.php?page=overview:
Quote:
The purpose of the criteria is to identify those candidates whose support among the electorate places them among the candidates who have a realistic chance of being elected President of the United States." Ridings added, "The realistic chance need not be overwhelming, but it must be more than theoretical."
Quote:
It was the CPD’s judgment that the 15 percent threshold best balanced the goal of being sufficiently inclusive to invite those candidates considered to be among the leading candidates, without being so inclusive that invitations would be extended to candidates with only very modest levels of public support, thereby jeopardizing the voter education purposes of the debates.
Quote:
Prior to adopting the 15 percent standard, the CPD conducted its own analysis of the results of presidential elections over the modern era and concluded that a level of 15 percent support of the national electorate is achievable by a significant third party or independent candidate who captures the public's interest. In making this determination, the CPD considered, in particular, the popular support achieved by George Wallace in 1968 (Mr. Wallace had achieved a level of support as high as 20 percent in pre-election polls from September 1968); by John Anderson in 1980 (Mr. Anderson’s support in various polls reached 15 percent when the League of Women Voters invited him to participate in one of its debates); and by Ross Perot in 1992 (Mr. Perot’s standing in 1992 polls at one time was close to 40 percent and exceeded that of the major party candidates, and he ultimately received 18.7 percent of the popular vote).
Think that's ludicrous. Very few candidates can achieve 45 States and feel they earned a shot. The way the Electoral College is set up prevents any third party from winning the Election.
I don't know, but if you and your running mate have a warrant issued for your arrest during the campaign I think it should be an automatic disqualifier.
Think that's ludicrous. Very few candidates can achieve 45 States and feel they earned a shot. The way the Electoral College is set up prevents any third party from winning the Election.
Not sure what you're saying.
The Electoral College and the CPD are two entirely separate things, they have nothing to do with each other. Neither debates nor the CPD are mentioned in the Constitution.
Obviously I'm a biased Johnson supporter, but I think if a candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states, averaging over 10% nationally, and within 4% of the major party candidates in 2 states. Then that person should be allowed in the debate.
Johnson is at 23% in Utah and 25% in New Mexico. But state polls don't count for the CPD, but I think they should.
Do you feel candidates able to have their name on 45 States or more by September should be allowed to participate in Debates? Not include States where name has to be written in.
In addition to, Candidates should not picked by popular vote. Instead by September a final list of Candidates able to achieve 45 States or more are eligible for Electoral votes. In addition to, do you feel winner of the State achieves 2 Electoral votes. Runner up candidates receive 1 Electoral vote. In addition to, if the Candidates party is the Majority Party of the State they'll receive an 1 additional Electoral Vote. Outside of the States the Territory votes count as well.
Think that be a fair process.
What's your thoughts.
"Do you feel candidates able to have their name on 45 States or more by September should be allowed to participate in Debates?
Obviously I'm a biased Johnson supporter, but I think if a candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states, averaging over 10% nationally, and within 4% of the major party candidates in 2 states. Then that person should be allowed in the debate.
Johnson is at 23% in Utah and 25% in New Mexico. But state polls don't count for the CPD, but I think they should.
"averaging over 10% nationally"
NOPE.
This would caue CHASOS.
People like johnson could NOT get onto the republican statge far enouh to make it all the way so they wait until the Conventions are close or over THEN they decide to run.
In your scenario we could have 2 dozen or more people running.
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.
Not sure what you're saying.
