Don't miss what's happening in Kingwood
People on Kingwood.com are the first to know.
Go to top of page
Close
 
Close
Back

Third party candidates fall short of debate

Third party candidates fall short of debate

« Back
This discussion has been locked.
Message Menu
by: FoFa Active Indicator LED Icon 17 OP 
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 7:43am  
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party hopeful Jill Stein have failed to quality for the first planned U.S. presidential debate on Sept. 26, the Commission on Presidential Debates said on Friday.LINK 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
What are your thoughts? Log in or sign up to comment
Replies:
Message Menu
notfromhere Active Indicator LED Icon 12
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 8:15am  
Stupid rule. The two-party system has failed us. I am convinced there would be a 15 point swing in Johnson's favor if he took part in the debate 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
Max57 Active Indicator LED Icon 5
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 9:45am  
Is this a media imposed rule? If so, why?
I would google to see who the heck is in charge of these decisions, but I am, frankly, so sick of it all, I can't bring myself to waste my time. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
TEXASGIRLMAMMA Active Indicator LED Icon 10
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 10:10am  
The Commission on Presidential Debates: An OverviewWhat is the CPD? The Commission on Presidential Debates (the “CPD”) is a private, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization. As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is eligible under federal law to serve as a debate sponsor. The CPD's primary mission is to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between and among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. The CPD is an independent organization. It is not controlled by any political party or outside organization and it does not endorse, support or oppose political candidates or parties. It receives no funding from the government or any political party, political action committee or candidate. The CPD has sponsored general election presidential debates in every election since 1988.Why was the CPD Formed? The CPD was formed to ensure that the voting public has the opportunity to see the leading candidates debate during the general election campaign. General election debates between and among the leading candidates for the office of President of the United States are not required or assured. After the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, there were no such debates in 1964, 1968 and 1972. There were debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984, but they were hastily arranged after negotiations between the candidates that left many uncertain whether there would be any debates at all. The 1984 experience, in particular, reinforced a mounting concern that, in any given election, voters could be deprived of the opportunity to observe a debate among the leading candidates for President.Following the 1984 election, two distinguished national organizations, the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Harvard University Institute of Politics, conducted separate, detailed studies of the presidential election process and the role of debates in that process. Both studies found that debates between or among the leading candidates should become a regular part of the way Americans elect their presidents. A primary concern cited in the studies was that the leading candidates had often declined to debate or resisted debates until the last minute. With this concern in mind, both the Georgetown and Harvard reports recommended that the two major political parties endorse a mechanism designed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that presidential debates between the leading candidates be made a permanent part of the electoral process.In response to the Harvard and Georgetown studies, the then-chairmen of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., respectively, jointly supported creation of the independent CPD. The CPD was incorporated in the District of Columbia on February 19, 1987, as a private, not-for-profit corporation to “organize, manage, produce, publicize and support debates for the candidates for President of the United States.”Who runs the CPD? The CPD is governed by an independent Board of Directors. The CPD Board presently is jointly chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Mr. McCurry succeeded CPD co-founder Paul Kirk in 2009. Although at the time the CPD was formed, Messrs. Kirk and Fahrenkopf served, respectively, as chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, their terms ended in 1989. In the intervening 25-plus years, no sitting officer of either major party has had any affiliation with the CPD and the major parties have no role whatsoever in running CPD or setting its policies. In addition to the Co-Chairs, the current Board consists of the following distinguished Americans, all of whom volunteer their time to serve on the CPD Board:Howard G. Buffett, Chairman and CEO, The Howard G. Buffett FoundationJohn C. Danforth, Former U.S. SenatorMitchell E. Daniels, Jr., President, Purdue UniversityCharles Gibson, Former Anchor, ABC World News with Charles GibsonJohn Griffen, Managing Director, Allen & Company LLCJane Harman, Director, President and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsAntonia Hernandez, President and CEO, California Community FoundationReverend John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre DameJim Lehrer, Former Executive Editor and Anchor of the NewsHour on PBSNewton N. Minow, Senior Counsel, Sidley Austin LLPRichard D. Parsons, Senior Advisor, Providence Equity Partners LLCDorothy S. Ridings, Former President, the League of Women Voters and former President and CEO, Council on FoundationsOlympia Snowe, Former U.S. SenatorShirley M. Tilghman, Former President, Princeton UniversityHow is the CPD Funded? The CPD receives no funding from the government or any political party, political action committee or candidate. The CPD obtains the funds required to produce its debates every four years and to support its ongoing voter education activities from the communities that host the debates and, to a lesser extent, from corporate, foundation and private donors. Donors have no input into the management of any of the CPD’s activities and have no input into the process by which the CPD selects debate participants.How has the CPD Selected the Candidates Invited to Participate in Its Debates? The nonpartisan, voter education goal of the CPD’s debates is to afford the members of the public an opportunity to sharpen their views, in a focused debate format, of the leading candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. The CPD's approach to candidate selection has been driven by this goal.Scores of candidates run for president every election cycle, including dozens who do not seek the nomination of either major party. The CPD applies its nonpartisan candidate selection criteria in the final weeks of a long general election campaign. The CPD's selection criteria have sought to identify the individuals whose public support has made them the leading candidates.In addition, candidates for federal office are not required to debate. History teaches that it is speculative at best to assume that the leading candidates would agree to share the stage with candidates enjoying only scant public support. Thus, a sponsor of general election debates that aims to provide the electorate with a focused debate that includes the leading candidates faces a difficult task. The sponsor needs to be inclusive enough to invite each of those candidates, regardless of party affiliation, whose level of public support genuinely qualifies him or her as a leading candidate. At the same time, the sponsor should not take an approach that is so inclusive that invitations to candidates with scant public support leads to the public losing the opportunity to see debates that include the candidates in whom they have the greatest interest. The CPD strives to strike this balance in an appropriate fashion.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.The CPD’s determination with respect to participation in the CPD’s first-scheduled debate will be made after Labor Day 2016, but sufficiently in advance of the first-scheduled debate to allow for orderly planning. Invitations to participate in the vice-presidential debate will be extended to the running mates of each of the presidential candidates qualifying for participation in the CPD’s first presidential debate. Invitations to participate in the second and third of the CPD’s scheduled presidential debates will be based upon satisfaction of the same multiple criteria prior to each debate.The CPD adopted its 2016 criteria based on the recommendations of a working group of its Board chaired by former League of Women Voters president Dorothy Ridings, who serves as a CPD Director. At the time the Criteria were announced, Ridings stated, "We considered a wide array of approaches to the candidate selection issue. We concluded that CPD serves its voter education mission best when, in the final weeks of the campaign, based on pre-established, published, objective and transparent criteria, it identifies those individuals whose public support places them among the leading candidates and invites them to debate the issues of the day. We also concluded that the best available measure of public support is high-quality public opinion polling conducted near the time of the debates."Ridings also noted that, "Under the CPD's non-partisan criteria, no candidate or nominee of a party receives an automatic invitation. The CPD's objective criteria are applied on the same basis to all declared candidates, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof." Ridings explained, "During the course of the campaign, the candidates are afforded many opportunities in a great variety of forums to advance their candidacies. 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."Also at the time the 2016 Criteria were adopted, CPD Co-Chairs Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry noted that “We are mindful of the changes in the electorate and the large number of voters who now self-identify as independents. We believe our candidate selection criteria appropriately address this dynamic. The CPD's selection criteria make participation open to any candidate, regardless of the candidate's party affiliation or status as an independent, in whom the public has demonstrated significant interest and support." The Co-Chairs further explained: "It is appropriate for a debate sponsor to take the campaign as it finds it in the final weeks leading up to Election Day. The CPD's debates are not intended to serve as a springboard for a candidate with only very modest support. Participation in the debates is determined by the level of public support a candidate enjoys as Election Day approaches."Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates? The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000. Its initial adoption, and its adoption in subsequent cycles, was preceded by careful study and reflects a number of considerations. 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. Notably, the League of Women Voters struck the balance in the same way. Fifteen percent was the figure used in the League of Women Voters’ 1980 selection criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson in one of the League’s debates.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).The CPD's nonpartisan candidate selection criteria and 15 percent threshold have been found by the FEC and the courts to comply with federal election law. The same is true for the earlier criteria CPD used in 1988, 1992 and 1996.Are the Major Party Nominees Automatically Invited to Participate in the CPD's Debates? No. Under the nonpartisan criteria used by the CPD in 2000-2012, the major party nominees have not received automatic invitations. Those candidates were invited pursuant to the same standards applicable to all declared candidates.Does the CPD Conduct its own Polling when Applying the Criteria? No. In each election cycle since 2000, CPD has retained Dr. Frank Newport, Editor-in-Chief of Gallup, to assist it in selecting the five national public opinion polls to be used in applying the criteria. Dr. Newport's recommendations have been based on his professional judgment concerning the most suitable polls. In making his recommendations, he has considered the quality of the methodology the polling organizations employed, the size of the sample population polled, the reputation of the polling organizations, and the frequency of the polling conducted. In 2012, the polls relied upon were: ABC News/The Washington Post, NBC News/The Wall Street Journal, CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News and Gallup.Has the CPD ever used Different Candidate Selection Criteria? In the 1988, 1992 and 1996 debates, the CPD used a multi-factor set of criteria designed to identify the leading candidates. The criteria were developed based on the work of an advisory panel of distinguished Americans, including individuals not affiliated with any party. The individuals serving on that advisory panel (and their then-current principal affiliation) included, among others: Marian Wright Edelman, President, Children's Defense Fund; Mary Hatwood Futrell, President, National Education Association; Carla A. Hills, Partner, Weil, Gotshall & Manges; Barbara Jordan, Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas; Melvin Laird, Senior Counselor, Readers' Digest; William Leonard, former President, CBS News; Newton Minow, Partner, Sidley & Austin; Richard Neustadt, Professor, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Paul H. O'Neill, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Aluminum Company of America; Nelson W. Polsby, Professor, University of California at Berkeley; Jody Powell, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ogilvy & Mather Public Affairs; Murray Rossant, Director, Twentieth Century Fund; Jill Ruckelshaus, director of various non-profit entities; Lawrence Spivak, former Producer and Moderator, "Meet the Press"; Robert Strauss, Partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; Richard Thornburgh, Director, Institute of Politics, Harvard University; and Anne Wexler, Chairman, Wexler, Reynolds, Harrison & Schule.A subcommittee of the advisory panel, headed by the late Professor Richard Neustadt of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, drew on the deliberations of the larger panel to develop nonpartisan criteria for the extension of debate invitations. While the panel's recommended candidate selection criteria themselves were quite detailed, they included a review of three types of factors: (1) evidence of national organization, (2) signs of national newsworthiness and competitiveness, and (3) indicators of national public enthusiasm or concern, to determine whether a candidate had a realistic chance of election. The criteria did not consider any one piece of evidence to be determinative. Rather, a variety of evidence was to be reviewed in considering whether a particular candidate had a realistic chance of election. The criteria used in 1988 and 1996 were substantially the same.In 1988, 1992 and 1996, the Board called upon an advisory committee chaired by Professor Neustadt to assist it in applying the criteria. In each cycle, the CPD Board accepted the recommendations of the advisory committee in determining who qualified for inclusion in the debates under the criteria.Why did the CPD Switch Criteria in 2000? The more streamlined criteria were adopted to provide greater transparency.Has the Format of the CPD's Debates Changed over the Years? Since 1987, the CPD has worked to develop debate formats that focus maximum time and attention on the candidates and their views. The CPD’s first set of debates used the model that had been employed for several previous cycles, one moderator with a panel of three journalists. By 1992, the CPD had introduced the town meeting, in which citizens ask questions of the candidates; used every cycle since, the town meeting is made up of approximately 100 citizens chosen by the Gallup organization as undecided voters from the metropolitan area of the debate site.In 1992, a single moderator was used for the town meeting, the vice presidential debate, and the first half of the final presidential debate. Starting in 1996, the CPD exclusively used a single moderator for all its debates, a practice which has continued through 2012.In 2000, the CPD held its first debate in which the candidates were seated at a table with the moderator, a format that further encourages candid conversation without the physical separation of podiums. In 2012, the CPD adopted a significantly different format for the first and last presidential debates: those two debates were divided into six 15-minute segments, during each of which the candidates discussed one major issue facing the country. One debate was devoted to domestic issues and one to foreign affairs. The topics for both debates were chosen by the moderators and announced several weeks beforehand. This change was the result of the CPD’s sustained effort over many years to foster meaningful discussion of the issues and to eliminate restrictive time constraints.How are the Debate Moderators Chosen? The moderators are selected by the CPD. The CPD uses three criteria to select its moderators: a) familiarity with the candidates and the major issues of the presidential campaign; b) extensive experience in live television broadcast news; and c) an understanding that the debate should focus maximum time and attention on the candidates and their views. The moderators alone select the questions to be asked, which are not known to the CPD or to the candidates. They do not meet with the campaigns, nor do the campaigns have a role in moderator selection. Starting in 1996, the CPD has used a single moderator for all of its debates in order to keep the focus on the candidates and their positions.How are the Sites and Dates for the Debates Selected? The CPD chooses sites for the debates by soliciting bids from interested sites. Over the years, the CPD has held all but three of its debates on college and university campuses; this has allowed students to participate in t
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
shodan66 Active Indicator LED Icon 15
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 10:16am  
Is this a media imposed rule? If so, why?
I would google to see who the heck is in charge of these decisions, but I am, frankly, so sick of it all, I can't bring myself to waste my time.
 
@Max57:
No, this rule is from the Commission on Presidential Debate (CDP) that's conveniently enough controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties.  Completely rigged system and they don't even try to hide it.  The CDP has stated openly since they took over the debates (1988) that they're not likely to include any 3rd parties.  They drew their 15% arbitrary line in the sand in 2000 because guys like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul were drawing enough interest to no longer be completely ignored.  They've never come out saying whether that had to be 15% nationally or in a certain amount of states or what poll(s) they would use to come up with their numbers.  A Washington Post/Survey Monkey poll has Johnson polling at or above 15% in 15 states.  Several of the other national polls are only giving a choice between Clinton/Trump and not even mentioning Johnson or Stein. Like @notfromhere says, the duopoly of Dem/Pub is absolutely terrified of giving Johnson/Weld a microphone and letting We The People see that they have a viable, intelligent, adult choice and not the two bowel movements they're trying to serve us as a meal. EDIT:  @TEXASGIRLMAMMA posted the CDP company line while I was typing.  I know it's a cut and paste and absolutely no reflection on TGM.  That being said, it's the biggest pile of dog excrement I've read in a long time.  Absolute political speak to make you think they are some how fair when they are blatantly to the point of almost being antagonistically bias and intent on securing the continuation of the two-party system.   4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
AstroKing Active Indicator LED Icon
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 10:21am  
This whole election is a farce by two corrupt political parties who care nothing about people and only about money.  Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are two decent people who get it, but of course, the system is designed to protect itself at all costs, so of course they won't let the everyday person have a chance to see them on national television.  A vote for Johnson isn't a wasted vote.  A vote for Clinton or Trump, now that's a wasted vote.  Both are identical in the fact that absolutely nothing will change.  Want small government?  Vote Johnson.  Want the government to stay out of your life and leave you alone?  Vote Johnson. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
Chrisinkingwood Active Indicator LED Icon 8
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 11:05am  
In my opinion people should be more concerned with who is elected to the Senate and the House. A lot more happens there as far as what government gets done or doesn't and with the House they run every 2 years. That being said I have always felt that everyone running should get to debate. Even that crazy "The Rent Is Too High" guy who ran for Mayor of NY got his time on the stage. There are arguments for and against 3rd parties in the mix and coalition governments. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. Our system is different from many nations as we can end up as we are now with 1 party in the WH and the other running Congress. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
shodan66 Active Indicator LED Icon 15
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 11:39am  
@Chrisinkingwood, although I don't disagree totally, I see a couple of differences that make me prefer a 3rd party President first.  First, Congress generally follows the President so getting a 3rd party in there is much more likely to create a domino effect than vice versa.  Second, have you seen the Dem and Rep candidates?!?  If We The People remain We The Sheeple and vote either of these buffoons into office, "Idiocracy" will become a documentary instead of just social commentary. We were warned against a two-party system by the Founding Fathers.There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. - John AdamsAnd this guy:The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty - George WashingtonThey called it 200 years ago. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
Metro07 Active Indicator LED Icon 3
~ 7 years ago   Sep 17, '16 2:55pm  
Is this a media imposed rule? If so, why?
 
@Max57: This is the only rule both parties see eye to eye on.
4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
This discussion has been locked.
« Back to Main Page
Views: 10
# Replies: 8

K&S Sportswear




Kingwood Laundromat Logo Primrose School of Eagle Springs Logo Granny's Tamales LLC Logo Abbie's Plumbing LLC Logo Wild Birds Unlimited Logo Dogtopia Atascocita Logo Northpark Animal Hospital Logo Ashworth Design & Remodeling, LLC. Logo CBD American Shaman Of Kingwood Logo Radiant Facials Skin & Body Spa Logo Rosati's Pizza Logo RBF Design Logo Orion's Rain Logo Warren's Southern Gardens Logo VCA Kingwood Animal Hospital Logo T.A.P.S Home Repair & Remodeling  Logo The Nathaniel Center Logo Agape Garage Doors, LLC Logo Massage Heights Body + Face Kingwood Logo Prime Lawn Patio & Landscape Logo Weight Loss Now - Kingwood  Logo J + A Pool Plastering Logo
Sponsor an ad Sponsor an Ad »