Great news. I wish them well. But i still thinking a better strategy is to subvert an existing major party, like Trump did.
Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 11, 2017, at 06:20, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > Real Clear Politics > > Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates > > Melissa Cruz > February 10, 2017 > > > Except for 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been sued in > every presidential cycle since it was formed in 1987. Those court challenges, > usually centering on opening the process to more candidates, have never > gotten anywhere — until now. > > Those frustrated with the two-party domination of America’s election process > finally have something to cheer about, thanks to a federal judge’s ruling > against the Federal Election Commission. Reformers hope this decision could > result in the next presidential debate stage being more crowded – and more > independent – than it has been since the 1990s. > > The pathway to get there, however, is not a straight one, and not all > independent activists yearning to break the Democratic-Republican duopoly are > certain that litigation is the best path. > > But thanks to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the legal option is > now in play. Her ruling states that by ignoring a complaint filed by Level > the Playing Field, a nonprofit group trying to open up the presidential > debates to a third-party candidate, the FEC has been active in ways that > benefit the Republican and Democratic parties. (The plaintiffs in the case > also include the Libertarian National Committee and the Green Party of the > United States.) > > Their complaint zeroes in on the presidential debate commission, alleging > that the rules of the road adopted by the self-described nonpartisan > organization eliminate any realistic possibility of allowing a third-party > contender onto the debate stage. The lawsuit alleges that in so doing, the > nonprofit debate sponsor has violated federal election laws; the suit asks > for the FEC to intervene, a request that has so far been ignored. > > Although neither the commission nor the FEC responded to a request for > comment on the judge’s ruling, commission officials have long insisted that > they are not trying to hinder viable candidates from participating in the > process, but that it makes sense to afford a platform to presidential > candidates with a realistic chance of being elected. The debate commission is > neither congressionally mandated nor constitutionally protected, and some > commissioners have pointed out that other organizations can sponsor debates > if they choose. > > But Level the Playing Field maintains that the 15 percent support threshold > needed for participation under the commission’s rules effectively bars a > third-party or independent candidate. The group’s legal complaint argues that > an independent candidate would need to achieve a minimum of 60 percent > national name recognition in order to hit the 15 percent polling marker. The > plaintiffs contend that the commission rule is unfeasible in terms of time > and money – a third-party candidate would have to rally massive support by > the time the general election debates begin, no easy task since such > candidates often don't possess the finances and sheer manpower of their major > party rivals. > > It all comes down to the limited tools with which independents are forced to > work. Independent candidates generally cannot get on the ballot for closed > primaries. Additionally, they are allowed to accept no more than $5,200 from > any individual donor for the two years leading up to the election, while > their Republican and Democratic counterparts can receive up to $537,000 in > “soft money” donations > > under FEC rules. Under these conditions, reaching the minimum support > threshold is all but impossible. > Alexandra Shapiro, the New York-based lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the > lawsuit is specifically contesting the 15 percent rule. > > “The ball is now in the FEC’s court,” Shapiro said, noting that the > commission has been given 30 days as of Feb. 1 to reconsider or further > explain its decision to dismiss LPF’s complaint. It has likewise been given > 60 days to reconsider the petition for rulemaking to change the debate > regulations as the plaintiffs have requested. > > Their hope is that the lawsuit will ultimately require the FEC to enforce its > own election laws on the CPD. The regulations would then be modified to > “expressly prohibit using a polling threshold as the exclusive way to get > into the debates,” said Shapiro. > > The complaint also highlights another alleged sign of favoritism toward a > two-party system. Key members of the commission have repeatedly donated to > the Republican and Democratic national committees, and poured thousands of > dollars into the respective parties' presidential campaign coffers. These > donations, the complaint argues, show that the CPD is violating its core > tenet of nonpartisanship. > > Shapiro also stressed the partisan backgrounds of founding chairmen Paul Kirk > and Frank Fahrenkopf, who are former heads of the DNC and RNC, respectively. > She cited statements made at the group’s 1987 inception that it was > bipartisan and would not look favorably on including third-party candidates > in debates, as reported by The New York Times. > > “The debates should be run by a group that is going to operate the process in > a more nonpartisan manner,” Shapiro added. “If the rules were changed and > there was a legitimate way to get a third-party candidate into the debates, > we could see a whole new process in the 2020 presidential election.” > > Just how that process may take shape could vary greatly. Level the Playing > Field envisions choosing a third-party candidate from a signature-gathering > competition or from a nationwide primary conducted exclusively online. > > “The key here is that we have a broken political system,” says former under > secretary of state James Glassman. “But how do you fix it? There’s talk of > changing campaign financing, gerrymandering, but [LPF] has realized there’s > one fairly small way to change it all: simply change the debate rules.” > > Glassman, who worked in the George W. Bush administration and is now advising > Peter Ackerman, the force behind Level the Playing Field, also asserts that > it’s backwards to use polling to determine access to the political process. > “No state uses polling as a way for people to gain access to anything on the > ballot,” he said. “Whether it’s for the mayor, governor, or so on, it’s > signature gathering.” > > Another alternative floated by reformers is a nationwide online primary, a > election process Glassman believes would “really capture the imagination of > the American public.” > > This method would also set a minimum threshold: “Maybe 2 million votes, 5 > million – we would discuss with the commission on what would qualify,” > Glassman said. “By having a national primary, we would be inviting all the > states to participate, not just places like Iowa and New Hampshire. Everyone > would have an equal vote.” > > Even those who share Ackerman’s goals wonder if litigation is the most > effective way of challenging the status quo. Terry Michael, the former senior > media adviser for Libertarian Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign, believes > that discussion, as opposed to a lawsuit, is the best way for alternative > parties to move forward. > > Michael said his advice for the Johnson campaign during the 2016 election was > to not pursue the matter in the courts. Rather, he pushed for a discussion > with the commission in the hopes that the organization would change its > regulations in time for Johnson to make the general election debates. Michael > said the CPD was “obstinate” in its defense of the 15 percent rule, but he > wonders if the commissioners would have been more open to negotiation if they > hadn’t been sued. > > Michael, who served as the DNC’s press secretary when the commission was > first established, also doubts whether the FEC has the jurisdiction to > dictate conditions to the debate commission, which is not a government entity. > > But the official stance of the Libertarian National Committee, another > plaintiff in the case, is decidedly more optimistic. Nicholas Sarwark, > chairman of the LNC, noted that the FEC has control over debate organizations > through a federal statute; that statue requires debate sponsors to act in a > nonpartisan manner. If the CPD is shown to be in violation but remains > bipartisan, Sarwark said it would have to “report as a campaign organization > and not take corporate funds,” thereby losing its status as a 501(c)(3) > nonprofit. > > Sarwark admits there is nothing inherently wrong with an organization wanting > only Republicans and Democrats on their stage, but the debate sponsors must > drop the nonpartisan label. > > The Libertarian committee chairman is uninterested in talks with the CPD: > “Our party’s stance is that you don’t really negotiate with terrorists. They > stonewall us every time and are bound and determined to exclude us from their > ‘campaign commercial.’” > > Sarwark doesn’t believe the CPD would negotiate in good faith anyway, saying > the commission members “weren’t interested in talking about meaningful > change. If anything, it would be more along the lines of a delaying tactic to > blow us off for the next few years. As a plaintiff, you shouldn’t bring a > suit and then negotiate against yourself.” > > As for the Libertarian Party’s path to the debate stage, it is focusing on > traditional ballot access. If a candidate has sufficient access and a pathway > to win the Electoral College, he or she should be allowed on the debate > stage, Sarwark said. > > And if there must be a polling standard in addition to ballot access, the > Libertarian Party believes pollsters should reframe their line of > questioning. For example, voters are typically asked, “Would you vote for > this candidate if the election was held today?” Instead, Sarwark believes > voters should be asked whether they would like to hear from multiple > candidates at the debates. If polls were framed this way, the numbers would > likely shift in third-party candidates’ favor. > > The Green Party points to another obstacle: the difficulty in even getting > its candidates on the ballot. “It’s an effort that takes so much time and > money that it handicaps alternative party candidates,” said party spokesman > Scott McLarty. > > Les Francis, a former executive director of the DNC and deputy White House > chief of staff under President Carter, tried to nudge the commission in an > entirely different direction during the 2016 election. > > “I tried, obviously without success, in the lead-up to the 2016 elections and > through back channels, to offer an alternative to both LPF and the CPD, > whereby there might be a ‘playoff’-type system, something similar to NCAA > basketball,” Francis told RCP. > > “In my scenario, some number of ‘independent’ or minor party candidates – > their viability tested by polling both name recognition but also by more > probing questions – would square off in debates either before or just after > the nominating conventions. The top two or three finishers, according to an > average in well-regarded national polls, would participate in the first > debate with the major party nominees, and then if one or more hit a threshold > of say, 10 percent, would go to the second debate. Another round of polling > could determine the makeup of round three.” > > Francis said these negotiations were not possible, however, as a negative > campaign against the debate commission had already “poisoned the well > regarding any further, productive conversations.” > > There was, however, one aspect to the case all groups agreed on: No matter > the pathway to get on the debate stage, a third-party candidate is a needed > antidote after the Clinton and Trump campaigns. > > “There is no better argument for including candidates like Jill Stein than > from what we saw at the debates last year,” McLarty asserted. > > James Glassman concurs. “When you get down to it, we have a broken system > that is getting more broken by the minute. It’s because when we only have two > parties, each one goes into its own corner,” he said. “You frequently end up > with extremism, while the vast majority of Americans are in the middle. Even > if the independent choice doesn’t win, that person would have a big impact on > pulling the other candidates to the middle to create a more constructive > election.” > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
