So F.E.C., what's your excuse ?

[Rotobeast]

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/02/libertarian-party-gets-victory-in-suit-a

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2017, 04:38 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/02/libertarian-party-gets-victory-in-suit-a

I had seen this case before and it got me wondering about what would be a good, objective way to include more people in the debates, but not allow just anyone in. I think that might be a decent conversation to be had, here.

Me, personally, I think the standard should be that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to garner the 270 necessary electoral votes then they should be allowed on the stage for the GE debates.

Of course, I want to go popular vote for POTUS, so that would thwart this idea. But if we are going to have an EC then we might as well use it as a measuring stick for something like this. I'm not sure what to use if we went popular, though.

[mallorian69]

(02-08-2017, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had seen this case before and it got me wondering about what would be a good, objective way to include more people in the debates, but not allow just anyone in. I think that might be a decent conversation to be had, here.

Me, personally, I think the standard should be that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to garner the 270 necessary electoral votes then they should be allowed on the stage for the GE debates.

Of course, I want to go popular vote for POTUS, so that would thwart this idea. But if we are going to have an EC then we might as well use it as a measuring stick for something like this. I'm not sure what to use if we went popular, though.

I like your idea and think it would work. As for if we ever went to a popular vote I could see something similar. If a candidateis on the ballot in enough states to where if they were able to collect 50% of the votes from those states they would reach 50% of the popular vote. You could also just go with if they are on the ballot in at least half the states they would get an invite. You could lower either of those numbers just using them as an example.

[CKwi88]

(02-08-2017, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had seen this case before and it got me wondering about what would be a good, objective way to include more people in the debates, but not allow just anyone in. I think that might be a decent conversation to be had, here.

Me, personally, I think the standard should be that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to garner the 270 necessary electoral votes then they should be allowed on the stage for the GE debates.

Of course, I want to go popular vote for POTUS, so that would thwart this idea. But if we are going to have an EC then we might as well use it as a measuring stick for something like this. I'm not sure what to use if we went popular, though.

I'm all for that setup.

Don't need to worry about the popular vote caveat though, popular vote will never happen unfortunately.

[Rotobeast]

(02-08-2017, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had seen this case before and it got me wondering about what would be a good, objective way to include more people in the debates, but not allow just anyone in. I think that might be a decent conversation to be had, here.

Me, personally, I think the standard should be that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to garner the 270 necessary electoral votes then they should be allowed on the stage for the GE debates.

Of course, I want to go popular vote for POTUS, so that would thwart this idea. But if we are going to have an EC then we might as well use it as a measuring stick for something like this. I'm not sure what to use if we went popular, though.

Sounds good to me !

I'd even be ok with "qualifying" debates, for those on a lesser number of state ballots.
Run it like American Idol, for all I care.
I just want people to have a shot, have options, and let someone really put the "primary" candidates' feet to the fire.