Commission on Presidential Elections

[wiegeabo]

Didn't see a good place to put this, so might as well make a new thread.

The Federal Election Commission is accepting comments until the end of TODAY on a proposed rule that would prohibit the Commission on Presidential Debates from requiring qualified candidates to achieve a polling threshold in order to participate in the presidential debates.

Instructions if you want to comment:

Spoiler

Click http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/;
Click "Submit Comments on Ongoing Rule makings";
Click "add comment" beside "REG 2014-06 Amendment of 11 C.F.R. 110.13(c)";
Scroll down and click "next";
Fill in your contact information and hit "next";
Type "I support the petition" and click "next";
Click "submit".
Make sure and click "submit" again until you get a "confirmation notice".

For those who don't know what the Commission is, it's a private firm that determines which candidates will be in the televised national Presidential debates, and helps determine the format. To qualify, the firm established a rule that a candidate must have 15% of five national polls to be in the debate.

If it strikes you as odd that a private firm, and not a (possibly independent) government entity, run by only democrats and republicans, controlled by the DNC and RNC, and funded through contributions from foundations and corporations gets to decide on the national debate, you're not the only one. Hence why the Commission has been and is being sued, has always been under criticism, and has lost a number of sponsors in recent years.

I gave my comments, which sum up to:
1) Using polls is a Catch-22. Unless one has deep pockets, a candidate can't get significant numbers in the polls without the debates, but can't get into the debates without significant numbers.

2) 15% is an arbitrary number, that can be changed on a whim or to exclude/include certain candidates as needed. Why isn't it 5, or 10, or 16.35? What's so special about 15%. (Why isn't it if you can get on the ballot in enough States to get the minimum 270 Electoral Votes needed to win?)

3) No poll is perfect, hence margin of error. So what poll(s) should be used? How should they be done? What margin of error is acceptable? Should someone at 13% be let in because the margin is +-3%? Should someone at 17% be excluded for the same reason?

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think that 15% is a fair number. There's no point in giving airtime to a candidate that isn't even going to win at all to the point where they aren't even worth bothering to listen. People who criticize the Commission have no understanding as why third parties aren't viable in the United States (it has nothing to do with money or debates or exposure).

 

[wiegeabo]

But why is 15% a good number?

You say 15, maybe I say 10. Maybe someone else says 5, and someone else says 20. Boil it down, it's just an arbitrary number.

If one can get on the ballet in enough States to win 270 Electoral Votes, shouldn't that be enough?

"Giving air time to a candidate who won't win" doesn't strike me as a good argument because it falls into the catch-22 situation. They can't get the exposure they need without the debates, but they can't get into the debates without that exposure. And they could very well be worth listening to. They may be a viable candidate. But in today's environment, if you don't have deep pockets to advertise with, the national debate may be your only shot at getting the needed national exposure. Exposure which could very well bring the pockets and poll numbers a candidate needs.

And money, debates, and exposure can't be dismissed as reasons third parties can't gain traction in this country. Are they the only reasons? Nope. Are they significant? Yep.

 

[SV Fan]

I think that 15% is a fair number. There's no point in giving airtime to a candidate that isn't even going to win at all to the point where they aren't even worth bothering to listen. People who criticize the Commission have no understanding as why third parties aren't viable in the United States (it has nothing to do with money or debates or exposure).

I disagree, any candidate that is over 1% should get fair airtime in debates. How is a 3rd party supposed to get out their message if they not given a fair chance.

For those who don't know what the Commission is, it's a private firm that determines which candidates will be in the televised national Presidential debates, and helps determine the format. To qualify, the firm established a rule that a candidate must have 15% of five national polls to be in the debate.

I am not surprised why would the Dems or Reps want to allow other people in the debate(so they come up with rules that makes it very hard for any other candidate to get in). It's a basic case nobody is forcing either side to do a debate so if somebody put on a debate that allowed other candidates then both just wouldn't show up.

Personally I think Congress should force both parties to do at least 1 debate in an election year that includes people with over 1%, but congress won't do that out of fear if you give any 3rd party some exposure it can hurt them in the long run.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It is a valid argument because third party candidates never receive more than 1% of the vote. So even if you lower the threshold, they're still not going to be put onto the debates. And if someone has a 0% chance of winning, they are not worth my time to listen to as opposed to a Republican or Democrat who will actually win.

If you want genuine change to have more parties represented in our system of government, there has to be a radical change from our current system of voting from one of first past the post where the one who has the most votes gets it all, into a system of proportional representation. Nation-states with first past the post systems typically evolve into either nation-states with only two viable political parties like the United States or nation-states that have other parties that are so weak and pathetic that you might as well call them two party systems like the United Kingdom.

Even though people may vote ignorantly, they're not irrational. Most people are not going to throw their votes away to some party that has no governing experience at all. That is the only way a party can gain true exposure. No amount of money, debates, etc. will change that. In a proportional system, a new party would start off small in comparison to the Republicans and Democrats, but getting seats by winning 2% - 3% would allow a new party to gain true exposure to eventually grow by demonstrating governance capabilities.

People focus on things like money and the Presidential Commission on Debates because they're easy targets. But even if you change those things, the outcome is still going to be the same. Focus should be put onto things that would actually bring change, not stupid things like the debates.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I disagree, any candidate that is over 1% should get fair airtime in debates. How is a 3rd party supposed to get out their message if they not given a fair chance.



I am not surprised why would the Dems or Reps want to allow other people in the debate(so they come up with rules that makes it very hard for any other candidate to get in). It's a basic case nobody is forcing either side to do a debate so if somebody put on a debate that allowed other candidates then both just wouldn't show up.

Personally I think Congress should force both parties to do at least 1 debate in an election year that includes people with over 1%, but congress won't do that out of fear if you give any 3rd party some exposure it can hurt them in the long run.

Giving third party candidates exposure on debates is not going to hurt them one bit. The voting system is what goes against them, not the campaign system.

 

[SV Fan]

It is a valid argument because third party candidates never receive more than 1% of the vote. So even if you lower the threshold, they're still not going to be put onto the debates. And if someone has a 0% chance of winning, they are not worth my time to listen to as opposed to a Republican or Democrat who will actually win.

So why was Romney included in the 2012 presidential debates if you think somebody who has no chance of winning shouldn't be included?

Giving third party candidates exposure on debates is not going to hurt them one bit. The voting system is what goes against them, not the campaign system.

I do think if you give third party exposure, it might help them build a base for future elections and maybe in the future the libertarian, constitution or green party might get enough support in certain congress districts to win a seat or 2.

 

[hippie_hunter]

So why was Romney included in the 2012 presidential debates if you think somebody who has no chance of winning shouldn't be included?

Except Romney did have a chance of winning. Obama was by far the clear favorite, but Romney did have a chance. Saying otherwise is pure Obama sycophantic delusion. Hell, he probably would have won if his campaign apparatus wasn't so damn boneheaded.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I do think if you give third party exposure, it might help them build a base for future elections and maybe in the future the libertarian, constitution or green party might get enough support in certain congress districts to win a seat or 2.

Except enough people are not irrational enough to actually give a party with no governing experience power. If we moved to a proportional system, it would allow those parties you mention the ability to realistically target that seat or two and then build a base for future elections. And dare I say, it would make you happier too because you love rooting for the Democrats, it would give them the majority in the House guaranteed because Democrats typically win the national vote, but they're all clumped together in Democratic districts.

 

[SV Fan]

Except Romney did have a chance of winning. Obama was by far the clear favorite, but Romney did have a chance. Saying otherwise is pure Obama sycophantic delusion. Hell, he probably would have won if his campaign apparatus wasn't so damn boneheaded.

I was joking of coarse but let's be honest Demcorats basically start an election with like 250 electoral votes in their back pocket, I think the Republicans start at about 190

If we moved to a proportional system, it would allow those parties you mention the ability to realistically target that seat or two and then build a base for future elections. And dare I say, it would make you happier too because you love rooting for the Democrats, it would give them the majority in the House guaranteed because Democrats typically win the national vote, but they're all clumped together in Democratic districts.

Yeah good luck Republicans agreeing on this

 

[wiegeabo]

It is a valid argument because third party candidates never receive more than 1% of the vote. So even if you lower the threshold, they're still not going to be put onto the debates. And if someone has a 0% chance of winning, they are not worth my time to listen to as opposed to a Republican or Democrat who will actually win.

If you want genuine change to have more parties represented in our system of government, there has to be a radical change from our current system of voting from one of first past the post where the one who has the most votes gets it all, into a system of proportional representation. Nation-states with first past the post systems typically evolve into either nation-states with only two viable political parties like the United States or nation-states that have other parties that are so weak and pathetic that you might as well call them two party systems like the United Kingdom.

Even though people may vote ignorantly, they're not irrational. Most people are not going to throw their votes away to some party that has no governing experience at all. That is the only way a party can gain true exposure. No amount of money, debates, etc. will change that. In a proportional system, a new party would start off small in comparison to the Republicans and Democrats, but getting seats by winning 2% - 3% would allow a new party to gain true exposure to eventually grow by demonstrating governance capabilities.

People focus on things like money and the Presidential Commission on Debates because they're easy targets. But even if you change those things, the outcome is still going to be the same. Focus should be put onto things that would actually bring change, not stupid things like the debates.

You speak as if there is only one front to fight on? Why not two?

I agree that moving to something like IRV is critical. But it's not the only way to affect change. Getting into the national debate provides a ton of exposure to candidates. It gets their message (and party message) out to the masses effectively. Even if it doesn't sway the election, people can recognize things they agree with in a third party and ask, and demand, why their party doesn't support the same things. And it helps voters remember these parties come election time for other offices.

And why 15%? Why not 12%. Why not 20%, or 10%?. If someone has 14.8%, is that close enough? If so, what about 14.5? Or 14? Or 13.5? What if there is bias in the polls? What about margin of error, does it get ignored?


At the very least the Commission misleads the public by making itself look like the only legitimate source for the debates. When it should probably be done by a non-partisan agency with no corporate ties. If they want to continue running debates, then they should be forced to be up front about it. Call them the Democrat/Republican debates. Anything but the "Presidential Debates".


Oh, and not "wasting time" listening to someone can't win is why 3rd parties have such a problem getting their message out. And it's why getting systems like IRV implemented is going to be such a challenge. Who cares if 3rd parties are getting screwed by the voting system, it's not like they'll win anyway.

If we're going to change that attitude, then 3rd parties are going to need all the exposure they can get. And the national debate is literally one of the biggest advertising spots for any party.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Except there is only one front. The other fronts that people focus on are nothing but meaningless distractions. Even if you lower the threshold, third parties are still not going to win.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I was joking of coarse but let's be honest Demcorats basically start an election with like 250 electoral votes in their back pocket, I think the Republicans start at about 190

Democrats essentially have 247 guaranteed (thanks to huge states like New York, Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania) while Republicans have 206 (all those small states do add up). The problem for Democrats right now is that with the way demographics are shifting, people are moving out of Democratic strongholds like New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, and New Jersey and are moving into Republican strongholds like Texas, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina, etc. And those states are showing no real sign of trending Democratic, even Georgia and Texas, no matter how much Democrats want to delude themselves.

That said, Democrats have been making up with their strongholds losing ground by turning states like Nevada, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado into swing states thanks to the GOP for some reason, loving to shoot themselves in the foot with suburban voters.

Yeah good luck Republicans agreeing on this

No way in hell the GOP would want to change the system. Neither would the Democrats. A proportional system would most likely cause environmentalists and the populists to leave the Democrats, while the libertarians and evangelicals leave the Republicans. Neither would really like that to happen.

 

[SV Fan]

Republicans have 206

I guess the Question is, do you believe North Carolina(the final 15 of those 206) is the Dems Pennsylvania(yeah you might win it in a blowout, but good luck winning it in a meaningful election where it's a difference maker) or more in line with Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire(ie Republicans could win those, but probably won't). I would put North Carolina closer to Nevada(which is not in my 247 count) then Pennsylvania

That said, Democrats have been making up with their strongholds losing ground by turning states like Nevada, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado into swing states thanks to the GOP for some reason, loving to shoot themselves in the foot with suburban voters.

I think the Democrats secret weapon in all these states is Latinos, you know those guys the base of the Republican party seem to hate

 

[hippie_hunter]

I guess the Question is, do you believe North Carolina(the final 15 of those 206) is the Dems Pennsylvania(yeah you might win it in a blowout, but good luck winning it in a meaningful election where it's a difference maker) or more in line with Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire(ie Republicans could win those, but probably won't). I would put North Carolina closer to Nevada(which is not in my 247 count) then Pennsylvania

Yeah, I do believe that North Carolina is the Republican version of Pennsylvania. It's not impossible for a Democrat to win there, but overall, a Democratic win is pretty much a fluke. Obama's win there in 2008 was a fluke and recreating a winning formula in North Carolina since Obama's victory there in 2008 has been met with failure after failure. The Obama coalition just hasn't been able to make it work after their one time victory.

I consider Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire to be genuine swing states. They have significant Republican bases, but unfortunately the GOP has been plagued with terrible candidates at the national level. Not only that, but the Democrats have been getting trounced in those states at the state and local levels.

I think the Democrats secret weapon in all these states is Latinos, you know those guys the base of the Republican party seem to hate

I completely disagree with you there. Latinos have proven to be a really terrible demographic when it comes to voting. They should have reached the 10% threshold years ago and yet they just have in 2012. They should be turning out in higher numbers, but they don't. The influence of the Latino vote has been really overstated.

The key to Democratic victories in states like Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada has been suburban voters. Voters that are economically center-right but are socially quite left leaning. When Republicans are nominating candidates that are utterly toxic in regards to the social issues, utterly ignorant homophobic, xenophobic, ****-shaming jagoffs, we've been seeing Democrats win in those states. But when you get a Cory Gardner, a Bob McDonnell, or a Brian Sandoval, not only do those Republicans win, they win pretty convincingly.

 

[SV Fan]

Yeah, I do believe that North Carolina is the Republican version of Pennsylvania. It's not impossible for a Democrat to win there, but overall, a Democratic win is pretty much a fluke. Obama's win there in 2008 was a fluke and recreating a winning formula in North Carolina since Obama's victory there in 2008 has been met with failure after failure. The Obama coalition just hasn't been able to make it work after their one time victory.

Obama lost North Carolina by 2%, that margin of difference was closer then any swing state Obama won other then Florida(which had a difference of less then 1%). I guess good news for Republicans is Florida is probably the easiest state to win back, bad news is it only gets harder from that point onwards. Dems have a few ways to get to 270 without Florida and Ohio, Republicans don't. Personally If I was the Democrats, I would get my nose into Florida elections and try get the state to split up into North and South Florida, if you can divide those votes and make Florida meaningless it only makes it tougher for Republicans to win a national election. Florida otherwise is nothing but a money pit for the Democrats

I consider Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire to be genuine swing states. They have significant Republican bases, but unfortunately the GOP has been plagued with terrible candidates at the national level. Not only that, but the Democrats have been getting trounced in those states at the state and local levels.

Nevada actually had a bigger margin of Victory for Obama then Pennsylvania in both 2008 and 2012. In all honest we probably should just Put Nevada in the for sure Dem category and say North Carolina sort of in line with Nevada and Pennsylvania

In terms of Iowa and New Hampshire both have gone blue in 5 of the last 6 President elections(Bush won Iowa in 2004, NH in 2000). In the case of Iowa hell Dukakis won it in 88.

I completely disagree with you there. Latinos have proven to be a really terrible demographic when it comes to voting. They should have reached the 10% threshold years ago and yet they just have in 2012. They should be turning out in higher numbers, but they don't. The influence of the Latino vote has been really overstated.

I am talking in Presidential Election where you get good turnout, not off year elections

 

[hippie_hunter]

Obama lost North Carolina by 2%, that margin of difference was closer then any swing state Obama won other then Florida(which had a difference of less then 1%).

But in the end it still wasn't enough to overcome. There are a lot of Democratic leanings in North Carolina thanks to the Research Triangle area, but in the end, it's a light red state the same way Pennsylvania is light blue.

I guess good news for Republicans is Florida is probably the easiest state to win back, bad news is it only gets harder from that point onwards. Dems have a few ways to get to 270 without Florida and Ohio, Republicans don't.

Very true.

Personally If I was the Democrats, I would get my nose into Florida elections and try get the state to split up into North and South Florida, if you can divide those votes and make Florida meaningless it only makes it tougher for Republicans to win a national election. Florida otherwise is nothing but a money pit for the Democrats

I disagree. First of all, I think it's dumb to divide a state simply because of political lines. I will argue with my fellow Republicans how dumb it would be to separate Upstate New York from Downstate. I firmly believe it would be dumb to separate North Virginia from the rest of the state. Same with Florida. There needs to be better reasons to divide a state than mere shallow differences.

Nevada actually had a bigger margin of Victory for Obama then Pennsylvania in both 2008 and 2012. In all honest we probably should just Put Nevada in the for sure Dem category and say North Carolina sort of in line with Nevada and Pennsylvania

Nevada was a disaster for Republicans in 2008 and 2012 because the state GOP there was an utter mess compounded by terrible national candidates. Harry Reid built a very powerful Democratic machine there. But Brian Sandoval has changed things. Republicans are in firm control of Nevada now and if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, I think a Democrat is going to have a very hard time there in 2016.

In terms of Iowa and New Hampshire both have gone blue in 5 of the last 6 President elections(Bush won Iowa in 2004, NH in 2000). In the case of Iowa hell Dukakis won it in 88.

Iowa has a very powerful local Republican apparatus. If the national GOP were able to properly tap into it, and again, stop nominating ****** candidates, a Republican would win there.

I am talking in Presidential Election where you get good turnout, not off year elections

Even in Presidential elections, the Latino turnout is really overstated. Suburban counties going for Obama is what allowed him to win in states like Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and Florida. Not the Latino turnout. Do you think that Obama would have won Virginia without overwhelmingly white North Virginia? Do you think he would have won Nevada without super overwhelmingly white Washoe County, Nevada? Do you think he would have won without the white majority Denver suburbs of Colorado? The answer is no. Suburban voters who are economically center-right, but socially liberal have been the true key to electoral victory. The kind of people that are easily scared away by Republican candidates who go off gay-bashing and calling for a ban to abortions, but are easily swayed as long as GOP candidates avoid those issues.

And another thing to take into account is the question "Will the Obama Coalition return without Obama on the ballot?" So far, from what we've been seeing, is no, they aren't. 2016 will be the key to see if they will at least keep coming back in Presidential years.

 

[SV Fan]

I disagree. First of all, I think it's dumb to divide a state simply because of political lines. I will argue with my fellow Republicans how dumb it would be to separate Upstate New York from Downstate. I firmly believe it would be dumb to separate North Virginia from the rest of the state. Same with Florida. There needs to be better reasons to divide a state than mere shallow differences.

The Southern part of Florida seems more worried about the effects of climate change then the science denying northern part, if you split the state up in half you can elect a governor who more suits your needs then being forced to settle for Scott(because you can't pick a liberal Democrat since they will have no chance to win)

In the big picture it's probably not good for Florida, since it being the swingyest of swing states probably gets them a lot of ass kissing from both parties, but from a Democrat POV anything they can do behind the scenes to reduce Florida's power work's to their advantage

Nevada was a disaster for Republicans in 2008 and 2012 because the state GOP there was an utter mess compounded by terrible national candidates. Harry Reid built a very powerful Democratic machine there. But Brian Sandoval has changed things. Republicans are in firm control of Nevada now and if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, I think a Democrat is going to have a very hard time there in 2016.

If the Republicans want to win Nevada they better be Latino friendly like Bush, else even an average latino turnout will defeat them(hint: campaigning on self deportation is a guaranteed loser)

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Southern part of Florida seems more worried about the effects of climate change then the science denying northern part, if you split the state up in half you can elect a governor who more suits your needs then being forced to settle for Scott(because you can't pick a liberal Democrat since they will have no chance to win)

That's the same horrible logic that people like to use in my home state. If New York were split, we wouldn't be getting so many Democrats as governors who "ignore" Upstate New York. In reality, Cuomo (who is doing a good job IMO and I voted for him in re-election) has done more for Upstate than his predecessors and yet they still ignorantly complain about how Upstate is "ignored."

I think that if a true Democrat were the nominee in 2014 as opposed to an opportunistic slimeball like Charlie Crist, that not only would Rick Scott have lost, he would have lost in a landslide. The Democrats thought they were playing it smart by nominating a "moderate" who was "abandoned" by the Republican Party when in reality, they nominated someone who was just as unlikeable as Scott was.

A true, principled Democrat would have won that race and the Democrats played it stupidly. Florida being a challenge for Democrats has nothing to do with Rick Scott winning re-election. The Democrats deserve all of the blame on this one.

If the Republicans want to win Nevada they better be Latino friendly like Bush, else even an average latino turnout will defeat them(hint: campaigning on self deportation is a guaranteed loser)

I do agree that they should be Latino-friendly. But for different reasons that you would say. Again, suburban white voters tend to be a bit less xenophobic than their more ignorant counterparts.

 

[SV Fan]

That's the same horrible logic that people like to use in my home state. If New York were split, we wouldn't be getting so many Democrats as governors who "ignore" Upstate New York. In reality, Cuomo (who is doing a good job IMO and I voted for him in re-election) has done more for Upstate than his predecessors and yet they still ignorantly complain about how Upstate is "ignored."

Cuomo can go rot in hell, I hope he doesn't plan on winning the Democratic Presidential primary, although it would be nice to see NY primary voters screw him over.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Cuomo can go rot in hell, I hope he doesn't plan on winning the Democratic Presidential primary, although it would be nice to see NY primary voters screw him over.

I like Cuomo, I like to tell people that he's a Democrat who talks like a Republican . Seriously though, the man has been great for Upstate New York by actually paying attention to it. He's pragmatic who avoids acting like a populist progressive firebrand like Elizabeth Warren or Bill de Blasio. He protects New York from de Blasio, who I think would be an utter disaster for my home state. He legalized same-sex marriage the best way possible. He balanced the budget. He's fighting the unions that hurt New York. He recognizes that New York is overtaxed and is far too unfriendly to business. Really, the only thing that I find myself really disagreeing with him on is on the issue of gun control, but that issue doesn't even make my top five so I'm willing to let it slide.

However, Cuomo ain't gonna win the Democratic Presidential primary. He's done far too much to alienate the progressive base on the economic issues to ever get their support.

 

[SV Fan]

However, Cuomo ain't gonna win the Democratic Presidential primary. He's done far too much to alienate the progressive base on the economic issues to ever get their support.

It's not about the issues that bugs me as much as him sticking his noise into other Democrat races actually pushing for Republicans to win so he can in the future brag how was a Governor of a state where he had to work with Republicans(which seemed very self serving). Wasn't there some case he got a Democrat to flip sides so the State House(or Senate) would go Republican, hence Coumo in the future can brag how he worked with a Republican House at a state level.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's not about the issues that bugs me as much as him sticking his noise into other Democrat races actually pushing for Republicans to win so he can in the future brag how was a Governor of a state where he had to work with Republicans(which seemed very self serving)

Cuomo is a very pragmatic man. He knew the Republicans were going to win the Senate. He knows that if he wants anything to get done, he's going to have to work with them. He knows that he needs good relations with Republicans in order to fulfill his agenda (which is rather Republican-friendly to begin with).

He's just playing the game. The same way Rand Paul is playing the game. Or how Hillary Clinton is playing the game.

Wasn't there some case he got a Democrat to flip sides so the State House(or Senate) would go Republican, hence Coumo in the future can brag how he worked with a Republican House at a state level.

It was the Senate. The New York Senate has always favored the Republicans (Upstate rural and Republican suburban counties) while the State Assembly favors the Democrats (New York City, Rochester, Buffalo, Albany, and Syracuse dominate there). What happened was that Republicans offered some Democrats leadership positions in order for them to create a parliamentary styled coalition in the Senate that gave the Republicans the "majority." It wasn't Cuomo's doing.

What Cuomo did in 2014 was that he essentially had a truce with the Republicans. He didn't campaign for Democrats in the Senate and accepted the fact that the Republicans were going to expand their majority in the Senate. In return, Republicans essentially let Rob Astorino flounder and in many cases, many top local Republicans endorsed Cuomo.