Page 1 of 1
Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:18 am
by Skjellyfetti
The battle over the 2016 presidential debates is already underway.
A new national campaign, Change the Rule, is pushing for the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) to include a third-party party or independent candidate in next year’s debates.
A bipartisan group of more than 40 current and former elected officials, Cabinet members, diplomats, high-ranking military officials, and business and academic leaders are backing the effort.
In January, Change the Rule sent private letters to CPD board members requesting a rule change to remove some of the barriers to qualification facing nonmajor party candidates.
“Because the current rule affords independent candidates no chance to get into the debates, it dissuades men and women with extraordinary records of service to this country from running for President,” the letter, which hasn’t been released publicly until now, reads in part. “As a director of the CPD, you could ignore this complaint and wait for the ensuing legal process to play out. We think that would be a missed opportunity and an unfortunate mistake.”
The group says the terse response it received back — a two-sentence letter expressing gratitude for the input — has provoked them to take the fight public and take aim at the CPD, which activists describe as a “secretive, quasi-official group” of 17 unelected members.
A separate legal entity has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission and Change the Rule says legal challenges could follow over a rule the group says is in violation of federal law.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/23 ... the-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:20 am
by 89Hen
Would depend on how they achieve this. Seems like it would be awfully hard to keep it to adding only one more to make three.
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:30 am
by Skjellyfetti
89Hen wrote:Would depend on how they achieve this. Seems like it would be awfully hard to keep it to adding only one more to make three.
Why?
The group is pushing for an addendum to the current rule that would allow a candidate who gets on the ballot in states with a total of 270 electoral votes to qualify for the debate.
If more than one candidate meets that threshold, the one who amasses the most signatures as part of a ballot access process would become the third participant in the debates. They estimate the candidate would have to acquire 4 to 6 million signatures.
It's kinda like the playoff argument - someone is always going to be left off. But, three is better than two...
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:38 am
by 89Hen
Skjellyfetti wrote:89Hen wrote:Would depend on how they achieve this. Seems like it would be awfully hard to keep it to adding only one more to make three.
Why?
The group is pushing for an addendum to the current rule that would allow a candidate who gets on the ballot in states with a total of 270 electoral votes to qualify for the debate.
If more than one candidate meets that threshold, the one who amasses the most signatures as part of a ballot access process would become the third participant in the debates. They estimate the candidate would have to acquire 4 to 6 million signatures.
It's kinda like the playoff argument - someone is always going to be left off. But, three is better than two...
You expected me to open the full article?!
I have no problem with adding, my only point was when people write IF/THEN qualifiers they often get unintended results. To me this sounds a bit like a pre-election election or one of the All-Star online ballots that goes awry. I assume they went back and looked at past elections to see if anyone, or more than one, would have qualified for the debate... only problem is those results would have been from years when there was no chance to be included so no funny business would have been going on to meet the requirements. You don't think that IF this passed, there would a slew of political experts whose sole job was to figure out how to get a person into first place?
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:51 am
by Ibanez
How about shortening the campaign season? Is that we can all support?
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:59 am
by ASUG8
Ibanez wrote:How about shortening the campaign season? Is that we can all support?
Clearly, poor decisions are made within the extended period we currently operate.
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:26 pm
by Pwns
Zero problem with it.
During the primaries of both major parties candidates with no realistic chance of being nominated are allowed into debates. Why can't candidates from the top third parties get into debates for the general election?
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:54 pm
by andy7171
I have no problem with it. I fore see a future problem with allowing which third party to include. Inevitable it'll be left leaning third party vs right leaning third party.
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:57 pm
by kalm
andy7171 wrote:I have no problem with it. I fore see a future problem with allowing which third party to include. Inevitable it'll be left leaning third party vs right leaning third party.
Why do say that?
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:41 pm
by houndawg
Our system is rotten to the core. Time to replace it with a Parliamentarian system.
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:39 pm
by Ivytalk
houndawg wrote:Our system is rotten to the core. Time to replace it with a Parliamentarian system.
Complete with a House of Lords!
Re: Is this something we could all support?
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:49 pm
by ALPHAGRIZ1
I clicked on this hoping it was a thread supporting the immediate termination of the POS president, then the answer would have been yes.