Will Gary Johnson participate in a presidential debate?

[August1991]

The first debate is scheduled for 26 September. The CPD (debate commission) has a general rule that if a candidate is receiving more than 15% in popular support in recent polls, the Commission will invite the candidate to a debate. In 1992, Ross Perot was included.

At present, Johnson (Libertarian candidate, Republican ex-governor of New Mexico, is at about 8-10% in the polls. (Link) PredictIt has his participation in a debate around 25 cents.

There are 3 leader debates and 1 VP debate. (Johnson's running mate is William Weld, Republican ex-governor of Massachusetts).

Here's one of their ads

------------

Between 1960 and 1992, no president completed two terms - except Reagan. Since 1992, there's been some certainty with the possible exception of 2000.

Nevertheless, this 2016 election cycle is weird - like 2000 - but in its own way. No one predicted Trump's win and no one predicted that Sanders would last to June. Both Rodham Clinton and Trump have strong unfavourables; I suspect that many Americans will split their vote while holding their nose at the top of the ticket.

Will this presidential election get weirder? Well, is it possible that Rodham Clinton (or Trump) could fail to win a majority in the Electoral College?

The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution gives presidential candidates one chance for a majority in the Electoral College. Failing a majority on this single ballot (states vote en bloc), the choice of president goes to the House of Representatives - which must choose among the top three candidates from the Electoral College vote.

It would be the current, sitting, Republican-majority House to make this choice (not the House to sit in January 2017). Needless to say, Trump is not particularly popular in House Republican circles but neither is Clinton either.

Edited August 14, 2016 by August1991

[Bryan]

I hope he does get to debate, but I highly doubt that he will. The RNC and DNC put the 15% threshold in for a reason -- they do not like their two party system challenged.

[August1991]

I hope he does get to debate, but I highly doubt that he will. The RNC and DNC put the 15% threshold in for a reason -- they do not like their two party system challenged.

I think that the 15% rule is fudgeable (and this may explain the rather high value of the PredictIt share) but at 8%, Johnson won't be on the stage.

The bigger question is this: if Johnson gets to a debate, will the Electoral College lack a majority?

====

In 2000, the question was who should sit in the Electoral College. In 2016, the question may be what happens if the Electoral College can't decide?

[August1991]

In this 2016 cycle, I'm reminded of Andy Jackson who first ran (lost) as a "Democrat-Republican" (Jefferson's party) and then in effect created the "Democratic Party" which exists to this day.

IMHO, whether Trump or Libertarian, the Republican Party must be brought into the modern world.

Edited August 14, 2016 by August1991

[Bryan]

I think that the 15% rule is fudgeable (and this may explain the rather high value of the PredictIt share) but at 8%, Johnson won't be on the stage.

I've said it here before, but It's always surprised me that Libertarian doesn't get more traction in the US. It's pretty much the very definition of the "American Way". This election in particular, where even their own parties mostly hate their own candidates for the big two, it's quite odd that Johnson hasn't already gotten AT LEAST 15%. If there was even an election custom tailored for a third party to make some waves, this is it.

The bigger question is this: if Johnson gets to a debate, will the Electoral College lack a majority?

In 2000, the question was who should sit in the Electoral College. In 2016, the question may be what happens if the Electoral College can't decide?

Presidents have been elected without majorities before. Not really an issue.

[August1991]

Presidents have been elected without majorities before. Not really an issue.

Bryan, you're wrong. No president since 1800 has been elected/taken office without a majority in the Electoral College on the first ballot.

The issue is what happens when no candidate wins a majority on the first ballot in the Electoral College.

======

Hey, in 2000, the choice of president went to a "majority" in the Supreme Court.

Edited August 14, 2016 by August1991

[cybercoma]

If Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the vote in '92, Johnson doesn't have a chance in hell. He's polling at just over half those numbers. Unless he has concentrated support in one state, he won't get any votes from the EC.

[Kiraly]

I think his chances are slightly better than 50%. Johnson will likely focus his efforts on New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. If he can poll well in these states, other parts of the country may look at him more seriously.

I think his numbers will creep towards the 15% hopefully hitting the target in time.

[?Impact]

The five polls that will be averaged in mid-September (specific date has not been set) to decide who will participate in the Presidential debate if they pass the 15% threshold are:

• ABC-Washington Post
• CBS-New York Times
• CNN-Opinion Research Corporation
• Fox News; and NBC
• Wall Street Journal

Who wants to see Gary Johnson and/or Jill Stein?

[August1991]

If Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the vote in '92, Johnson doesn't have a chance in hell. He's polling at just over half those numbers. Unless he has concentrated support in one state, he won't get any votes from the EC.

Cybercoma, you don't understand the issue. If Johnson is in a debate, he may draw enough votes in a few states so that he wins their electoral votes - and so Clinton/Trump may each win less than 270 electoral votes.

In that case, the choice of president goes to the House of Representatives.

=====

Among US presidential cycles in the past 80 years or so, I'd compare this to 1976. Weird.

Edited August 19, 2016 by August1991

[August1991]

Who wants to see Gary Johnson and/or Jill Stein?

Including the name of Jill Stein in poll questions will apparently reduce the number of people who choose Johnson.

Let's be honest: a typical poll involves several thousand people but only 1000 people who answer questions of whom about 700 are decided. To reach 15% among decided voters, a poll must have about 100 people among 1000 who choose "Johnson" given four possible names including Trump and Clinton.

Doing such numbers, the debate stage in September will have only two people: Clinton and Trump.

Edited August 19, 2016 by August1991

[The_Squid]

Your math is seriously faulty. He needs 15% popular support, which means 150/1000, not 100. 100 = 10% obviously.

[August1991]

Your math is seriously faulty. He needs 15% popular support, which means 150/1000, not 100. 100 = 10% obviously.

Most polls sample several thousand people including about 1000 or so respondents, many (300 or so) undecided. 100 of 700 decided is about 15%; polling statisticians typically spread decided respondents among the undecided.

Getting back to my point: if you phone several people and 7 say they have decided their vote, what is the chance that 1 of the 7 will say "Johnson"?

====

Based on numbers, I reckon that Johnson will not be part of any debate.

Edited August 19, 2016 by August1991

[The_Squid]

Most polls sample about 1000 or so respondents, many undecided. 100 of 700 decided is about 15%; polling statisticians typically spread decided respondents among the undecided.

Getting back to my point: if you phone several people and 7 say they have decided their vote, what is the chance that 1 of the 7 will say "Johnson"?

Please provide a cite that says he needs 15% of decided voters in those polls.

I'll make it easy for you to find the commission that makes the rules: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview

[August1991]

"... and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination."

Your source, Squid.

Edited August 19, 2016 by August1991

[The_Squid]

...

Edited August 19, 2016 by The_Squid

[JamesHackerMP]

The first debate is scheduled for 26 September. The CPD (debate commission) has a general rule that if a candidate is receiving more than 15% in popular support in recent polls, the Commission will invite the candidate to a debate. In 1992, Ross Perot was included.

At present, Johnson (Libertarian candidate, Republican ex-governor of New Mexico, is at about 8-10% in the polls. (Link) PredictIt has his participation in a debate around 25 cents.

There are 3 leader debates and 1 VP debate. (Johnson's running mate is William Weld, Republican ex-governor of Massachusetts).

Here's one of their ads

------------

Between 1960 and 1992, no president completed two terms - except Reagan. Since 1992, there's been some certainty with the possible exception of 2000.

Nevertheless, this 2016 election cycle is weird - like 2000 - but in its own way. No one predicted Trump's win and no one predicted that Sanders would last to June. Both Rodham Clinton and Trump have strong unfavourables; I suspect that many Americans will split their vote while holding their nose at the top of the ticket.

Will this presidential election get weirder? Well, is it possible that Rodham Clinton (or Trump) could fail to win a majority in the Electoral College?

The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution gives presidential candidates one chance for a majority in the Electoral College. Failing a majority on this single ballot (states vote en bloc), the choice of president goes to the House of Representatives - which must choose among the top three candidates from the Electoral College vote.

It would be the current, sitting, Republican-majority House to make this choice (not the House to sit in January 2017). Needless to say, Trump is not particularly popular in House Republican circles but neither is Clinton either.

Actually, it's not that simple. When the choice of president devolves on the House of Representatives, each congressman doesn't get one vote: each STATE gets one vote, and a majority of states is needed to a choice. So 26 state delegations have to have voted for the same candidate for him or her to get elected. How they do that? No clue. (Perhaps they caucus amongst themselves and then hand the vote to the Speaker? And how they'd determine what Maryland's vote was if 4 congressman voted for Hillary, two for Trump and two for Johnson, for argument's sake; is anybody's guess!) The senate would then choose the vice-president, but that's a little more sane: each senator gets one vote, they only pick from the top TWO who received electoral votes and a majority of senators are needed to win the vice-presidency (likely that there would be a result in the Senate on the first ballot while the congressman are voting again and again like it's a papal conclave. Rest assured, however, that if there is no president-elect by Jan 20th at noon, the VP-elect is sworn in as acting president. So there will be somebody with his finger on the button.

Edited August 21, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[August1991]

Actually, it's not that simple. When the choice of president devolves on the House of Representatives, each congressman doesn't get one vote: each STATE gets one vote, and a majority of states is needed to a choice....

Here's the key phrase: "... the representation from each state having one vote; ..."

God knows what that means, but you may be right, Hacker. If 50 states have 50 votes, then I'd say Johnson has even a better chance. Except that I don[t think Johnson will get 15% or be in a debate. So, I don't think this presidiential election/choice will be thrown to the House of Representatives.

By most polls now, Rodham Clinrton has a majority among Electoral College votes. Hence, in January 2017, I reckon that she'll be sworn in as the next US president.

Edited September 9, 2016 by August1991

[segnosaur]

I hope he does get to debate, but I highly doubt that he will. The RNC and DNC put the 15% threshold in for a reason -- they do not like their two party system challenged.

I am not denying that the Republicans and Democrats like the 2 party system for selfish reasons.

But, there are advantages to such a system to the voters as well:

- It makes your electoral choices clearer. Look at Canada's election... ~40% is enough to gain power, and you always end up with accusations that "the party in power didn't get a majority of the vote". When you have 2 main parties, things are a lot simpler

- It encourages moderation. If you had more than 2 viable parties, some of the alternatives might end up being extremist or fringe parties. With 2 parties, both must attempt to appeal to voters in the political center (Granted, Trump does seem to be the exception that proves the rule.)

And yes, I do believe that it technically isn't a 2 party system, but functionality that's the way it works out.

As for having Johnson in the debate... him participating would give his candidacy a boost; however, it may also detract from the flow of he debates. It might be interesting from a reality show/Survivor perspective to see how candidates concentrate their attacks, but those wanting to evaluate Clinton and Trump will have less opportunity to judge the main candidates.

Frankly, I think all political debates should be replaced by a WWE-style cage match.

[?Impact]

- It makes your electoral choices clearer. Look at Canada's election... ~40% is enough to gain power, and you always end up with accusations that "the party in power didn't get a majority of the vote". When you have 2 main parties, things are a lot simpler

That is because we use the barbaric cultural practice of first past the post.

[JamesHackerMP]

Oh, it makes our "choices clearer" all right. The expression "Clearly, we're f*****d" comes to mind.

Once upon a time, it did encourage moderation. Today? No. Today, the system is far more polarized than it was in, say, the 1960s or even for a little while after that. If you have two choices and they're the result of a moderating process, fine. If you have two choices and they are not the result of said process, then it's not much of a choice. It's more like a conjuring trick: pick any card, you always pick the one the magician wanted you to pick. At least a deck of cards has 52 choices, not two.

I believe in first past the post, normally, because a lot of Americans are tied to "their" congressman, whether they like him/her or not. They can do things for you whether you voted for them or not. It's better that they're loyal to their constituents than to a party machine. But today, with polarization of American politics, they're starting to vote the party line, and the party line doesn't always respect the wishes of said members' constituents.

I agree that with FPTP and an electoral college, a two-party system makes more sense. It does not, however when the system has become polarized.

[August1991]

As for having Johnson in the debate... him participating would give his candidacy a boost; ...

I think Johnson's participation in a debate would change his electoral college numbers. But I don't think he'll get 15% in any poll and so the whole question is moot.

Frankly, I think all political debates should be replaced by a WWE-style cage match.

I disagree.

====

It is a sad feature of modern life that people's monthly car payments are about the same as their monthly property tax. Yet, people spend far more time researching/deciding a car than they ever do a local candidate - assuming that they even vote in a municipal election.

Edited September 20, 2016 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.wnyc.org/story/ten-signs-you-might-be-libertarian/

WYNC podcast covers the Libertarian Candidate this election.