The debate gatekeepers close the door on Gary Johnson and Jill Stein
Neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein has met the threshold for the first debate and therefore will not be allowed to particpate:
One of the criteria was that all candidates needed to be polling at 15 percent in these five polls as of Thursday.
Among those polls Hillary Clinton was at 43 percent, Donald Trump was at 40.4 percent, Johnson had 8.4 percent and Stein averaged 3.2 percent.
I realize that some sort of limits must be set if we don’t want to have a bunch of extraneous candidates on the stage. But 15% seems too high a bar for a third-party candidate. Gary Johnson is drawing a very significant number of votes, and barring him from debates means that he has little chance of drawing any more, because a debate would give him a tremendous amount of publicity and visibility.
By the way, the consensus is that Johnson probably draws votes more or less equally from Hillary and Trump. Stein draws them more from Hillary.
I have a mix of thoughts on an issue to which I admittedly haven’t given a lot of thought.
Intuition tells me that an either-or proposition rarely reflects reality. Neither Trump nor Hillary are the majority of voter’s first choice.
That said, one problem with a third alternative is an election like 1992, when Clinton won with a minority of voters.
Of course, such a President cannot declare having a mandate either. That’s OK if all sides conduct themselves accordingly. But we know the Left won’t conduct themselves accordingly.
Arguably, a parliamentary style of governance represents reality more closely but the UK is proof that such a system works no better than ours.
At least with democracies, the manner of governance is less important than the nature of the electorate. We have met the enemy…
Geoffrey Britain:
In recent years I’ve come to believe that mandates no longer matter to a lot of candidates. Waiting till you have a mandate for some action, and responding only when you do have a mandate, is a sign of respect for the electorate and its wishes, and a sign of restraint as a whole.
Those things appear to be gone. If Obamacare taught us nothing else, it taught us that.
The key for a 3rd party to build future support is to earn Electoral College votes in the western states. The Libertarian Party has the best chance of achieving this milestone. Several influential papers have endorse Johnson. Winning even one state’s EC votes would shake things up. I mean that literally. 😉
‘Gary Johnson is drawing a very significant number of votes, and barring him from debates means that he has little chance of drawing any more’
Which is the reason they want to bar him of course. They don’t want competition.
I for one don’t plan on watching the debate. Johnson is the only candidate worthy of a vote and without him at least, the debates are a waste of my time.
The failure to have reasonable threshold which a candidate must pass is literally what allowed the (figuratively) three hundred odd (play on words deliberate, literally) Republicans to clog the field and split the conservative vote, giving us the blowhard.
I also think 15% is too high a bar.
Now, I also think not having Johnson there benefits Trump. I basically don’t believe the polls that seem to show him taking more votes from Clinton, or even those who think he is a wash. At the end of the day, I think Johnson is probably the answer to the question of who NeverTrumpers are going to vote for, and when denied that choice, they still can’t say “Trump”. What they say on election day is what matters, and I think a good percentage of them will help put a stop to Clinton, once and for all.
I will put my prediction out there right now- Johnson wins 1.5% of the vote, and Stein wins 1%.
I’m a Johnson man now and a strong showing for him lays down markers for the future. Not necessarily for him or for libertarianism, but against the two pathetic mainline party candidates. He and Stein should do a “debate response” much as the opposition party does after the State of the Union. Johnson at least will have a good sense of humor and will contrast with the striving pair of human defectives on the main stage.
If Trump wins, he will probably accomplish nothing although he may allow Paul Ryan to do some things with the budget. He will not want to have to be responsible for real decisions, so will bloviate back and forth. If hillary eeks out a win, the Congress is likely to still be in GOP hands. So both ways nothing gets done, nothing is fixed and it is very likely that the international situation will continue to deteriorate.
So why not Johnson?
Oh by the way, could we please get some people with normal families the next time around? I read that young Barron Trump has a whole floor of the Trump tower to himself and that Melania proclaimed he doesn’t like sheets with graphics or pictures just clean white sheets. My god, a 10 year old kid should still have bed linens with superheroes, dinosaurs, football players or rockets. I truly feel sorry for him, just like I am sorry for Obama and his dysfunctional upbringing.
We used to get pretty normal people (Ike, Ford, Bush(s), Truman with the Kennedys, Clintons and Obama being the real exceptions. Let’s bring back normality again (I think that was Harding’s slogan)
parker Says:
Winning even one state’s EC votes would shake things up. I mean that literally.
So if a 3rd party wins one state, you’re predicting an earthquake? I hope the one state isn’t CA, or the results may be nullified.
”
They should schedule their own debate- some of the news channels might actually cover it. I would watch it.
Well, very rich kids are going to seem abnormal to most people. However, I will defend Trump here- his daughter is one of the most impressive women I have ever seen, and I first thought that over decade ago. He did do something right there, even if I have to give a great deal of credit to her mother, too. Does that qualify as normal? Well, no, but it is a plus in a big way.
The Libertarian Party has been on the ballot in all 50 states for the last 3 or 4 presidential election cycles. As far as I know, they are the only party beyond the gop and dems that can make that claim. The LP candidates should be awarded a podium at the debates for that reason alone.
Steve D is correct, having Johnson (flawed as he may be) at the debates, would draw approval from millennials; that would take votes from hrc more than djt. Same goes for Stein. Many of the youngsters want an alternative. This hurts hrc the most.
Matt_SE,
Not a quake but a tremor for certain.
I’m not a Donald Trump admirer, but he does seem to have picked very good mothers for all his children.
Yes, a higher or lower threshold could work for you one election and against you the next depending on who candidates are.
I think the only thing I would suggest is keep the same bar each year, because it can be used against one party or the other if they keep changing it. Keep it at 15% every year, or 10%, just don’t keep moving it.
This is fine with me. I’ve come to the point where all I want is for Hillary to lose.
Jill hinted that she and Gary are going to try and crash the debate and get arrested. Said it in Omaha.
“In recent years I’ve come to believe that mandates no longer matter to a lot of candidates. Waiting till you have a mandate for some action, and responding only when you do have a mandate, is a sign of respect for the electorate and its wishes, and a sign of restraint as a whole.
Those things appear to be gone. If Obamacare taught us nothing else, it taught us that.” – Neo
Few see the danger of ratcheting up centralization of power, and expanding the power of the executive, because it is okay when it is their guy doing it – after all, we can no longer live within the Constitution (so the theory goes) to get things done, and the country back on track – Make America Great Again!
Russia is Great now – that’s a model to emulate.
Ok, so they allow Johnson into the debates. He performs very well and draws off enough votes to win a few states, thus depriving both Trump and Clinton of 270 electoral votes. Under Amendment XII, the election goes to the House of Representatives, who are Constitutionally bound to select either Trump, Clinton or Johnson. (the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for [by the electors] as President.)
Johnson obviously has no support in the House of Representatives, so Trump or Clinton becomes President, and depending on the results of the Congressional election, the Presidency could well go to the candidate with fewer popular votes AND fewer electoral votes than the other major party candidate.
Is this a good outcome? Is this what anyone wants? Is this worth working towards?
If not, then Johnson should be marginalized and ignored.
“depending on the results of the Congressional election, the Presidency could well go to the candidate with fewer popular votes AND fewer electoral votes than the other major party candidate.” – jms
But that is within the rules. Of course it would be controversial, but much the same argument could be made about any of the three candidates – they didn’t get a majority.
If this process is “illegitimate”, then it is an argument for a plurality to win.
.
“Johnson obviously has no support in the House of Representatives” – jms
Of course, looking at it today, that is so. But a future where Johnson has won enough to disrupt the election by winning enough EC votes, then clearly he would have some support from the population who also voted for the folks in Congress. If there ever was an opening to get rid of trump and clinton, this would be it.
Yours is another circular binary paradigm type argument. Nobody else is changing their vote, so I’m not going to change my vote, thus we “only” have two choices this election.
IOW, the future can only hold exactly the same as what we see today – there is no possibility of change, and I’m not going to move first, even if I believe the two choices I limit myself to are awful.
“I’m not a Donald Trump admirer, but he does seem to have picked very good mothers for all his children.” – Ann
More likely, they had good nannys.
Given what we’ve seen this election cycle, and given trump’s past behavior, it is unlikely the women attracted to a man like that (who is also extremely wealthy) are of the “good mother” quality.
Maybe they are, and couldn’t care less about the money, lifestyle and fame – but would rather be a doting parent, thinking nannys are no way to raise a child.
We really have no idea how “good” his children are. For all we know, they are little donalds but with better sensibilities for public display.
Would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but being that close to power has a corrupting force, and we need to be rather wary.
If the Democrat Party and the Republican Party wish to arrange a debate between their two candidates and if they can then get some newspaper or some private broadcast system to cover it, then what the hell do they owe Gary Johnson of Jill Stein?
What is this? A smorgasbord where every reclining rocking chair denizen gets to sample whatever they like on a tray wheeled before them, and the two parties have to arrange it??
No wonder this country is so effed up. Peasant crap.
People already have their choice. Johnson and Stein can do whatever they please. Go get the League of Urban Feminist Voters, Transsexuals, and ‘Undocumented Migrants’ (Gary dear), to arrange it. Send out invitations, and enjoy the result.
You would think that of all people, Gary Johnson, the so-called libertarian would be the last to assume some kind of euro-style election predicate as the proper norm.
Shows you what a Libertarian is worth nowadays.
“Yours is another circular binary paradigm type argument. ”
It’s a recognition that we have a two-party system, and that it is baked into our Constitution. If we had a parliamentary system, this sort of thinking would make sense. Don’t trust Donald Trump? Force him to join with the Libertarians in order to gain a majority and form a government. In practice, the history of our country has been that when a minor party has overtaken one of the two major parties, the overtaken party collapses into extinction and the system once again stabilizes as a two-party system.
Perhaps at some future point the Libertarian party will become powerful and popular enough to overwhelm, destroy and replace either the Democratic or Republican party, but that isn’t going to happen in the next five weeks.
‘Yours is another circular binary paradigm type argument. Nobody else is changing their vote, so I’m not going to change my vote, thus we “only” have two choices this election.’
Personally, I think we have only one choice in this election: Johnson.
In practice, the history of our country has been that when a minor party has overtaken one of the two major parties, the overtaken party collapses into extinction and the system once again stabilizes as a two-party system.
I don’t think we have enough historical examples to extrapolate that this will always happen. And besides, even if it applies to the Presidency, Congress could easily find itself populated by three or more parties and end up with no party having a majority (assuming people voted that way)
And even if the system does stabilize as a two party system once again, it might take several elections for it to happen.
The reason is there is no proportional representation for the US as a whole and the individual states. In other words, the only seats available are for actual districts, and most of those elections simply require a plurality of the vote to win. In such a situation, the natural state is going be one party in power and one party in opposition, and hopefully, vice versa on occasion.
Some parliamentary systems that have had previous problems with strong minor parties disrupting the ability to form stable governments have minimum support requirements that make it harder for minor parties to get into the parliament/house- the Bundestag is the most obvious one.