Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Why Third Parties Must Be Allowed to Debate

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.