Gary Johnson

57Brave said:
Wasn't the time to voice these concerns 2014-15 ?
You remind me of the baseball parent that can't understand why her/his kid isn't playing SS because if only given more opportunity he could eventually make the throw to first on less than two hops. In spite of the fact there is another that can make the throw

Yes it is rigged -- do the work and un rig it. As someone did that set the mark at 15%
Personally I don't care if it is 7% or 20%.
But there has to be a cut off - as long as everyone knows that number going in.
What number do you see as fair ?

In real politik, if you spent the time you / (L) spend on debunking Bernie Sanders (who is no longer a candidate for anything) promoting Gary Johnson he might have made the cut
Click to expand...

I was voicing the concerns in 2012.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot that can be done because the system is corrupt. I've signed all the petitions. I've donated. I've volunteered. The commission doesn't care. They are private and they have a vested interest in keeping third parties out. If a third party ever did make the threshold, then I'm certain the rules would change - just like they did at the RNC and DNC.

I think Johnson's got a petition with a million signatures on it. Doesn't matter.

I agree... there should be a cutoff. You know what I think that cutoff should be? If you are on the ballot in all 50 states, you can debate.
 
If a candidate can't make it to 15% 5-6 weeks before the election -- the writing is kinda on the wall

Johnson/Stein have had 4 years to get their message out -- with polling at 10% max it obviously isn't resonating - why give them valuable featured time
Like I said, they have had 4 years -- just like Rubio,Sanders,Cruz etal.
My guess is Cruz or Sanders would poll higher than Johnson or Stein and make the ballot in all 50 states .

Perhaps elinminate the primary selection process as we know it to include Johnson and Stein.
Why just the exclusive (R) or (D) debates - have them mix it up to include niche candidates.

For example a O'Malley -Trump and Johnson debate in February. Or Clinton-Cruz -Sanders and Rubio etc etc etc
Shoot even include Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb early on
...
 
IMO, if you get on enough state ballots where you can gain enough electoral votes to win the office , you should be on the stage. I think that is a fairer than setting an arbitrary "15%" polling number, especially when exposure/performance in the debates themselves will influence those poll numbers.
 
acesfull86 said:
IMO, if you get on enough state ballots where you can gain enough electoral votes to win the office , you should be on the stage. I think that is a fairer than setting an arbitrary "15%" polling number, especially when exposure/performance in the debates themselves will influence those poll numbers.
Click to expand...

Get ready for 10 people on stage if that's the standard. Not saying you are wrong, but for what you suggest to work, you would probably need a higher standard to get on state ballots.

As per the education question, I am not an educator, but I have worked on educational policy for thirty years and from my observation, the first thing we need to do is re-design our E-12 system. I'm not saying go full European model where tests are administered in middle school and the results of those tests put you on an academic or technical education track, but I think we need to do more in the early grades on core knowledge, use middle school to both firm up that knowledge and allow for exploration, and then work in the upper grades to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of college. I don't know if free four-year college makes all that much sense, but extending high school to have two free years of community/junior or technical college may be the way to go. That is being pursued in several states and I will be curious to see the results. College has become extended adolescence for many (which is nothing really new) and the high price of college is making that a luxury most cannot afford.
 
50PoundHead said:
Get ready for 10 people on stage if that's the standard. Not saying you are wrong, but for what you suggest to work, you would probably need a higher standard to get on state ballots.
Click to expand...

I'd defer to you on that because you would know better than me, but I'd be fine with the higher standards if that was a necessary piece. I was under the impression that ballot access was a pretty significant hurdle...I think Johnson is the only 3rd party on all ballots and Stein is on 45. I'd prefer a scenario where there were a few more people on stage (in this cycle, two) than the more arbitrary polling standard, which only further entrenches the two party stranglehold. Especially in an election like this one where you have two depressingly unpopular candidates
 
acesfull86 said:
I'd defer to you on that because you would know better than me, but I'd be fine with the higher standards if that was a necessary piece. I was under the impression that ballot access was a pretty significant hurdle...I think Johnson is the only 3rd party on all ballots and Stein is on 45. I'd prefer a scenario where there were a few more people on stage (in this cycle, two) than the more arbitrary polling standard, which only further entrenches the two party stranglehold. Especially in an election like this one where you have two depressingly unpopular candidates
Click to expand...

It depends state-by-state, but if someone could get on the ballot in the 12 largest states (the number it would take to get a majority in the electoral college), they would be on-stage under your scenario. It would still be a challenge, but I think what you would see is splinter parties really work the largest states to meet the ballot requirements there. To that end, I think there would have to be a national standard for getting on the ballot in each state.
 
50PoundHead said:
It depends state-by-state, but if someone could get on the ballot in the 12 largest states (the number it would take to get a majority in the electoral college), they would be on-stage under your scenario. It would still be a challenge, but I think what you would see is splinter parties really work the largest states to meet the ballot requirements there. To that end, I think there would have to be a national standard for getting on the ballot in each state.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm OK with making it 50 states... which is not easy to do, unless you have a pretty good following.
 
sturg33 said:
That's why I'm OK with making it 50 states... which is not easy to do, unless you have a pretty good following.
Click to expand...

I think at the very least it should have to be a party with an organization in all 50 states that is registered with whatever body regulates the election process in each state and then have to gather the requisite number of signatures or whatever (sometimes there is a percentage of the vote threshold) to be recognized as a legitimate party.
 
Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates?

The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000. Its initial adoption, and its adoption in subsequent cycles, was preceded by careful study and reflects a number of considerations. It was the CPD’s judgment that the 15 percent threshold best balanced the goal of being sufficiently inclusive to invite those candidates considered to be among the leading candidates, without being so inclusive that invitations would be extended to candidates with only very modest levels of public support, thereby jeopardizing the voter education purposes of the debates. Notably, the League of Women Voters struck the balance in the same way. Fifteen percent was the figure used in the League of Women Voters’ 1980 selection criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson in one of the League’s debates.

Prior to adopting the 15 percent standard, the CPD conducted its own analysis of the results of presidential elections over the modern era and concluded that a level of 15 percent support of the national electorate is achievable by a significant third party or independent candidate who captures the public's interest. In making this determination, the CPD considered, in particular, the popular support achieved by George Wallace in 1968 (Mr. Wallace had achieved a level of support as high as 20 percent in pre-election polls from September 1968); by John Anderson in 1980 (Mr. Anderson’s support in various polls reached 15 percent when the League of Women Voters invited him to participate in one of its debates); and by Ross Perot in 1992 (Mr. Perot’s standing in 1992 polls at one time was close to 40 percent and exceeded that of the major party candidates, and he ultimately received 18.7 percent of the popular vote).

The CPD's nonpartisan candidate selection criteria and 15 percent threshold have been found by the FEC and the courts to comply with federal election law. The same is true for the earlier criteria CPD used in 1988, 1992 and 1996.

http://debates.org/index.php?page=overview
 
The Neilson Rating has Friends as one of the best TV shows ever.

66% of the people want a third party on the debate stage but only ~10% see Johnson as Presidential timber.

Where are the other 55% of the people?

.....

Three words for you.

Wallace
Anderson
Perot
 
AerchAngel said:
Communism?
Click to expand...

Communism is a form of socialism, which—again defining things in both very general and basic terms—goes beyond "equitable distribution of resources" and aspires to fully common ownership of society's economic machinery ("means of production") foremost, which thereby (theoretically) removes all class divisions from society; it also often intends to eliminate currency/money/fiat media of exchange, and in some very radical/anarchic versions even advocates the obliteration of any state apparatus. It might be helpful to think of communism as super-charged to hyper-articulated socialism.

(For what it's worth, I do not consider myself a communist.)
 
14333210_10207292786182245_6229244405017768789_n.jpg


Maybe one of these days when the young voters are the majority... the two party system will crumble.

But I also fear they will all be socialists
 
57Brave said:
The Neilson Rating has Friends as one of the best TV shows ever.

66% of the people want a third party on the debate stage but only ~10% see Johnson as Presidential timber.

Where are the other 55% of the people?

.....

Three words for you.

Wallace
Anderson
Perot
Click to expand...

You do understand that a lot of people would like to hear from someone else, if they don't support them, yes?

Isn't that the point of debates? To be convinced to give someone your support? Or must you already have made up your mind before hand?

You also understand that polls don't ask the question very well... Often times, they say "Trump, Hilary, or someone else"... When "someone else" is chosen, they don't count that for Gary Johnson.

You do understand that pollster do not reach out to cell phones.

You do understand that pollsters basically ignore young people.

So, we have polls showing that half the country does not believe the Republicans or Democrats represent their views.

We have polls showing that 60% of people would like to see Gary Johnson debate, even if they don't support him, yet.

We have two HATED candidates.

We have a former Republican Governor (i.e. - not a complete random dude) who is on the ballot in all 50 states, and despite hardly being mentioned and getting 0 media coverage, is polling at 10%

And you don't think that deserves a seat at the table?

You're pathetic. You support everything that is wrong with the country (and there is a ****ing lot wrong with it)
 
57Brave said:
Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates?

The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000. Its initial adoption, and its adoption in subsequent cycles, was preceded by careful study and reflects a number of considerations. It was the CPD’s judgment that the 15 percent threshold best balanced the goal of being sufficiently inclusive to invite those candidates considered to be among the leading candidates, without being so inclusive that invitations would be extended to candidates with only very modest levels of public support, thereby jeopardizing the voter education purposes of the debates. Notably, the League of Women Voters struck the balance in the same way. Fifteen percent was the figure used in the League of Women Voters’ 1980 selection criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson in one of the League’s debates.

Prior to adopting the 15 percent standard, the CPD conducted its own analysis of the results of presidential elections over the modern era and concluded that a level of 15 percent support of the national electorate is achievable by a significant third party or independent candidate who captures the public's interest. In making this determination, the CPD considered, in particular, the popular support achieved by George Wallace in 1968 (Mr. Wallace had achieved a level of support as high as 20 percent in pre-election polls from September 1968); by John Anderson in 1980 (Mr. Anderson’s support in various polls reached 15 percent when the League of Women Voters invited him to participate in one of its debates); and by Ross Perot in 1992 (Mr. Perot’s standing in 1992 polls at one time was close to 40 percent and exceeded that of the major party candidates, and he ultimately received 18.7 percent of the popular vote).

The CPD's nonpartisan candidate selection criteria and 15 percent threshold have been found by the FEC and the courts to comply with federal election law. The same is true for the earlier criteria CPD used in 1988, 1992 and 1996.

http://debates.org/index.php?page=overview
Click to expand...

Feel free to educate yourself

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top