Inclusion in the Presidential Debates
To the Commission on Presidential Debates,
I am writing to request that the National Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.
I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.
That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.
That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there is no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.
Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.
As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.
Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience, or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.
In all due respect, it is not the proper role of an nonelected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.
Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.
I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Thank you.
Governor Gary Johnson
Libertarian Nominee for President of the United States
Gary Johnson is not happy that some in the media call Republican vice presidential candidate and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan a libertarian.
“He voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for the National Defense Appropriation Act, he voted to ban online poker, he’s proposing a budget that gets balanced in thirty years. He is anything but a libertarian, anything but,” said Johnson after a packed campaign dinner at Hill’s Café.
Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, noted that Ryan was a strict social conservative that voted to restrict abortion rights and against marriage equality.
“Paul Ryan submitted personhood legislation that is anything but libertarian,” he said. Johnson's eyes widened and his volume increased as he went into detail about Ryan’s support for a national version of Virginia’s controversial transvaginal ultrasound law.
Johnson suggested that all the talk of Ryan as a libertarian and follower of Ayn Rand may help him because people will see pretty quickly that former New Mexico governor is the only real libertarian running.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen's explanation as to why he is not including Governor Gary Johnson in his Presidential polling reminds me somewhat of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. Nothing Rasmussen says makes any sense.
A poll which does not test all the candidates who are on the ballot is by definition unprofessional, unscientific, flawed and inaccurate.
Rasmussen says, "We have concluded that the most accurate measure of the Obama - Romney race is to leave Johnson out of the mix". Huh?
As a political scientist clearly Rasmussen knows it is impossible for Johnson, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, to get zero votes, thus any measure of the electorate that does not include him will be incorrect.
Rasmussen also defends himself by saying that it is more accurate to ask the voters if they are voting for Romney, Obama or "some other candidate" even though in the vast majority of states Johnson is the only "other candidate" on the ballot.
Rasmussen goes on further to insist that those voters who chose "some other candidate" in his polls opted to drift back to the major parties when asked if they could change their mind. Not surprising in view of the fact that the Pollster doesn't mention the "other candidates" name.
The assertion that 3rd party candidacies fade as the election approached was certainly true - before the full development of the Internet as a communications tool. The demassification of communications in our culture has given way to greater independence by voters and less reliance and faith in political parties.
Governor Johnson is owed substantial public funds from the Federal Election Commission and as his campaign fundraising continues to improve it is safe to say that he will have the resources to communicate in the swing states in the fall.
In 2000, Pollsters like Scott Rasmussen failed to include Ralph Nader in their polling in Florida. Thus, they failed to see the votes Nader drained from Al Gore. Not polling the name of all candidates on the ballot is by a pollster is malpractice.
In a nationwide poll of 1,000 likely voters, 24% of respondents said they would vote for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson.
Likely voters were asked, “Suppose in this year’s Presidential Election you had a choice of Libertarian Gary Johnson or Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson or Democrat Barack Obama?”
24% Johnson
45% Obama
27% Some other candidate
3% Not sure
This national telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on August 8, 2012. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC is an independent public opinion research firm using automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports, LLC. The poll was conducted on behalf of Libertarian Action Super PAC.
Pulse Opinion Research has handled public opinion polls for organizations such as Rasmussen Reports and The Hill newspaper.
View the poll results
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has said that its threshold for getting into their debates is 15%. According to this poll, Libertarian Gary Johnson easily passes that test.
Some observers believe that two-candidate polls can produce biased results if there are more than two candidates running. However, the Commission on Presidential Debates apparently uses two-candidate polls when deciding whom to allow in its televised debates. (Those polls only include the Democratic and Republican candidates.)
The LASPAC poll follows the pattern of two-candidate polls conducted by other polling organizations.
Conclusions:
* The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) can’t have it both ways. If two-candidate polls are acceptable, then this poll should count toward the inclusion of Gary Johnson. If two-candidate polls are not acceptable, then CPD must not consider any two-candidate polls from other polling firms. Any other choice would demonstrate partisan bias on the part of CPD. (As a 501(c)(3) organization, CPD is not permitted to show partisan bias when making its selections.)
* A large percentage of voters are clearly willing to consider Libertarian Gary Johnson as an option. His name should be included in all presidential polls.
According to one New Mexico paper, “[Governor] Johnson left [New Mexico] fiscally solid,” and was “arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus.” The Washington Times has reported that when Johnson left office, “the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus.” According to a profile of Johnson in the National Review, “During his tenure, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined — 750 in total, one third of which had been introduced by Republican legislators. Johnson also used his line-item-veto power thousands of times.”Whether or not Johnson has a chance of making significant headway in the polls, his small-government record as a popular governor is undeniable. The GOP should not expect the small-government conservatives on the right to be satisfied with Romney’s more liberal record or his low approval rating as Governor of Massachusetts.
We just conducted a nationwide telephone poll of registered voters. Here’s what the poll sounded like:
The results:
Barack Obama 56%
Gary Johnson 19%
Undecided/neither 25%
You may be thinking, “Why does that matter, since it doesn’t include the Republican?”
Here’s why it matters:
Gallup has been conducting presidential polls just like this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Note the wording of their question:
“Suppose the presidential election were held today. If Barack Obama were the Democratic Party’s candidate and Mitt Romney were the Republican Party’s candidate, who would you vote for, Barack Obama, the Democrat or Mitt Romney, the Republican?”
It includes the incumbent, Obama, plus one selected challenger, Romney — and no one else.
Now here’s our question:
“Suppose the presidential election were held today. If Barack Obama were the Democratic Party’s candidate and Gary Johnson were the Libertarian Party’s candidate, who would you vote for, Barack Obama, the Democrat or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian?”
It’s exactly the same question, except we picked a different challenger.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) wants candidates to get at least 15% in nationwide polls. But most of those polls only include Obama and Romney. So, if those polls count, then our poll counts too.
We did this poll cheaply (but scientifically) using a less-known robocall firm. Now we want to do it again, on a bigger scale, using a well-known polling organization like Public Policy Polling, SurveyUSA, or Gallup. If we ask the question the same way (just like Gallup), Gary Johnson has a very good chance of getting more than 15%.
Let’s show that to the Commission on Presidential Debates! They can’t have it both ways — they can’t include biased polls that only name Obama and Romney, and then ignore polls like ours.
We’d love to push the CPD into a corner. If they have to accept polls like this, then Gary Johnson has a great chance of getting into the debates. At worst, they’ll have to start demanding that all their polling organizations include Gary Johnson — and that would be a good thing too.
