Tonight, we saw the first televised debate between Trump and
Clinton. The most prominent third-party candidates, Gary Johnson and Jill
Stein, were not invited. Why?
Those decisions are made by the Commission on Presidential
Debates (CPD), an organization founded by the Republicans and Democrats in 1987.
Prior to that, the debates were run by the League of Women Voters,
which objected strongly to the CPD’s takeover. ''I think they're trying to
steal the debates from the American voters,'' said Nancy Neuman, the League’s
president. “The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship . . .
because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud.”
► Read
the League’s 1988 press release here:
The CPD’s two founding chairmen were the chairmen of the
Republican and Democratic National Committees. Both men stated that the CPD would
probably exclude third parties.
► Read a
1987 New York Times article about the CPD’s creation here:
From 1988 to 1996, the CPD used vague criteria to decide which
candidates would be included in the debates. During that time, a third-party
candidate was included only once (Ross Perot in 1992). Then, in the year 2000, the
CPD adopted a more rigid set of criteria:
{1} The candidate must be constitutionally eligible.
{2} The candidate must appear on enough state ballots to
conceivably win.
{3} The candidate must have at least 15% support in a chosen
set of national polls.
The first criterion is a no-brainer. The second one is a
challenge for third parties because ballot access requirements in some states are
extreme. It takes a lot of time and effort for state campaign organizers to get
their presidential candidates onto the state ballots. Usually, third parties
settle for ballot access in less than 50 states, but this year, the Libertarian
Party managed 50-state ballot access for the first time since 1996. (The Green
Party is on the ballot in 45 states this year.) Considering the difficulty of obtaining
ballot access, it should be enough by itself to qualify for the debates... but
it’s not.
That brings us to the CPD’s 15% polling criterion. It isn't
high enough to affect major-party candidates, who reliably poll above 30%. It's
only high enough to affect third-party candidates, who reliably poll below 10%.
As a result, third-party candidates have been excluded from the debates ever
since the 15% threshold was enacted. It is now a predictable outcome. We know
it’s going to happen. The CPD knows it’s going to happen. Since they haven’t changed
their threshold in response, we can assume that either (a) they don't care
about excluding third parties, or (b) they’re doing it intentionally.
I understand that the CPD doesn’t want every Tom, Dick, and
Harry who files paperwork to be on the debate stage... but a 5% threshold would
be more than enough to keep out the obscure fringe candidates. Compared to
that, 15% is a blatant exclusion strategy.
The counterargument to including Gary Johnson is that he
doesn’t have “enough” support. Currently, his polling average is around 7.4%
(down from a high of 9%), which represents about 10 million voters. Is 10 million
people “enough” support? Some will say yes; some will say no, but I maintain
that the CPD – an organization founded by Republicans and Democrats – should
not be the one to decide.
According to three recent polls, 52-76% of likely voters want
to see Gary Johnson included in the debates. It is hugely telling that more
than 50% of the voters want to see him included when only 7% plan to vote for
him. It suggests that even people who don't support him are interested in
hearing from a third choice. And why not? A third candidate will raise different
issues and share different perspectives. A third candidate will enrich the
conversation and hold the major-party candidates to a higher standard, driving
them to improve. In other words, a third-party candidate has a valuable place in
the conversation, even when he doesn’t have a significant chance of winning.
On that note, isn’t the candidate’s “chance of winning” a
self-fulfilling prophecy? Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have a high chance
of winning because everyone believes they have a high chance of winning. You
can see the effect of that belief when you look at current polling and compare
it to the primaries. During the primaries, Donald Trump had the support of 13
million people... but now, as the Republican nominee, has the support of 57 million people. Hillary Clinton had the support of 16 million people... but now, as the Democratic nominee, has the support of
57 million people.
Once you are nominated by a major party, you automatically
gain millions of supporters. (If Gary Johnson magically became the Republican
nominee tomorrow morning, he would be polling at 30% by tomorrow
night.) Those new supporters don’t necessarily like you as a candidate; they
just feel compelled to choose you or “the other guy” because we have a
two-party system. On the other hand, third parties are stuck in a catch-22
where no one takes them seriously because they “can't win,” and they “can't win”
because no one takes them seriously. The CPD's choice to exclude them just
reinforces that catch-22.
Moreover, polls don’t accurately reflect a third-party
candidate’s appeal, especially compared to major-party candidates. Most of the polls
ask, "Who would you vote for?" not "Who do you like best?"
and that’s a problem for two reasons. First, voters are strategic, so they don’t
always vote for the candidate they like best; they vote for a candidate they
believe can win. Second, voters don’t always consider a candidate with low name
recognition—a candidate they haven’t heard much about. Since third-party candidates receive astronomically less media coverage, that's a big problem.
We can’t fix the strategic voting problem without overhauling
our electoral system... which is probably a good idea, but isn’t going to
happen any time soon. However, we can fix the name recognition problem by including
third parties in the debates. For voters to consider supporting Gary Johnson,
they have to know about Gary Johnson and see him as a viable alternative to
Trump and Clinton. That won’t happen unless they see him on the debate stage
with Trump and Clinton. Until then, it’s meaningless to say that he doesn’t
have “enough” support. His poll numbers have more to do with our electoral process
and our media trends than with him as a candidate.
Consider this analogy: You have just opened a pizza shop in
a small town which already has two pizza shops. After investing the time and
money to start your business, you approach the local newspaper and ask for your
restaurant to be listed in the “Food” section with the others. The newspaper
declines, saying, “Sorry, but we only list restaurants that are already
patronized by 15% of the town.” (As a side note, this newspaper is run by the
former owners of the other two pizza shops.) The problem should be obvious: How
are you supposed to get half as many customers as the other pizza shops when
you aren’t presented as an alternative to the other pizza shops?
Granted, you can advertise in other ways — by word of mouth,
distributing flyers, etc. – but the fact remains that you are being
disadvantaged by not receiving equal opportunity. Your hypothetical pizza shop
is being told that it won’t be given a reasonable chance to succeed unless it
succeeds first. That is a total contradiction, but it’s what third-party
candidates are hearing from the CPD.
For the good of our election process, that should change.
