Letter for Commission on Presidential Debates RE: Third Party Debates

Commission on Presidential Debates                                                          November 25, 2017
1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 445
Washington DC 20036

Dear Board of Directors,
As you are undoubtedly aware, in September 2014, Level the Playing Field filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the Commission on Presidential Debates (“CPD”) and its directors. The complaint argues that the CPD and its directors, in violation of federal law, have used nonobjective, biased rules designed to exclude independent or third-party candidates from the presidential debates.

We have reviewed the complaint and the original supporting research it includes, and we agree with its core conclusions. We believe the current rule requiring non-major party candidates to average over 15% in five polls taken just days before the debates does not meet the governing legal standard and is harmful to our democracy. Because the current rule affords independent candidates no chance to get into the debates, it dissuades men and women with extraordinary records of service to this country from running for President.

As a director of the CPD, you could ignore this complaint and wait for the ensuing legal process to play out. We think that would be a missed opportunity and an unfortunate mistake. Instead, we urge you to change the rule now in order to have a new, more democratic 2020 election that breaks free of our current tired and failing politics.

Sixty-two percent of Americans do not think the federal government has the consent of the governed, and 86% feel the political system is broken and does not serve the interests of the American people. Eighty-one percent believe that it is important to have independent candidates run for office, and 65% say they wish they had the option to vote for an independent candidate in a U.S. presidential election.1

Moreover, these problems of American democracy—including rising disenchantment and declining voter participation—are increasingly shaping the way the rest of the world perceives the United States, eroding the prestige of the American model and its capacity for moral leadership abroad.

We think your current position requires you to pay close attention to this overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the two-party system. Americans are clearly saying that they want a more open and competitive political system. As a director of the CPD, you occupy a position of enormous public trust with a responsibility to make decisions in a nonpartisan manner.

The current rule, however, serves only the interests of the Democratic and Republican parties in maintaining their duopoly. It creates a barrier to entry into the debates that since 1960 no American running outside the primaries has been able to overcome. It requires a non-major party candidate to spend an incremental amount of money that no independent candidate has ever raised nor has any billionaire ever spent. It relies on polls that are biased against third-party and independent candidates and are grossly inaccurate in predicting a three-way race. Furthermore, the selection and timing of each poll used in calculating the average is easily subject to manipulation.

Today, a majority of Americans believe that the most convincing reason to reform the presidential debates is to end the exclusion of independent candidates. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to embrace your public responsibility by improving the prospects for an additional qualified Presidential ticket debating during October 2020.

Right now you have the opportunity to reform the flawed status quo. A simple rule change that enables a candidate to qualify for the debates by some means other than polling and is resolved sufficiently in advance of the election to enable that candidate to compete on a level playing field will allow a credible alternative to emerge.

Before it adopted the 15% rule, the CPD endorsed fundraising ability, operational capacity, and numerical demonstrations of popular support (for example attendance at campaign rallies), as criteria for debate selection. A rule designed to capture these types of indicia of support could spur many outstanding men and women who are highly qualified to be President to consider running. And since a new rule would be applied well in advance of the debates, a third-party or independent candidate who qualified under it would enjoy the media coverage that a guaranteed spot in the debates would prompt. This would give the American people time to get to know a qualified, non-major-party presidential nominee who would be in the debates. Our democracy would be much better for it.

One possible rule change could keep the existing 15% polling requirement as one way to qualify for the debates, but add the following, alternative means: On April 30 before a November presidential election, any candidate, party, or nominating process with ballot access in states that collectively have at least 270 Electoral College votes would notify the CPD of that access. If there is more than one, then whoever has gathered the most signatures as part of the ballot access process will participate in the debates with the Democratic and Republican nominees.

We believe that the competition under such a rule would be vigorous, enabling, and a legitimate third candidate would emerge. We estimate that the winner of the signature competition will need to collect some 4 to 6 million signatures, obtained from a broad cross section of Americans – a clear demonstration of popular appeal. The cost and scale of that endeavor would not be insurmountable, but it is substantial enough to ensure that only someone with significant fundraising and operational capacity and public support could win. This signature drive competition – which is not unlike the early state primaries – provides one objective, fair, and measurable way to qualify for debate access.

It is certainly possible that implementing such a national signature drive competition – or any similar fair and unbiased rule – may confront unexpected logistical difficulties and indeed, a qualified candidate still might not meet the new criteria. However, we believe these risks pale in comparison to the opportunity to open up the political process and fundamentally improve the way we pick our President and Vice President.

Merely changing the polling threshold – for example by reducing it from 15% to 10% or simply deferring the issue to a later date, will not address the structural impediment to a truly fair and competitive presidential election.

By controlling access to the debates, the CPD effectively determines who has a credible chance to win the election. That is a solemn and historic responsibility we know you take seriously, and we strongly urge you to open up the debates and allow more choices for the American people.

Please do not assume that any of the signatories to this letter are committed to voting for an unaffiliated candidate in 2020. Individually, they may decide that the Democratic or Republican candidate is superior. What each signatory wants is the same thing the American people want: the restoration of honest competition in the way we select our president, as required by the law.

The best solution is to change the rule, level the playing field and discover which great Americans will run for President.

Given the looming 2020 presidential election cycle, we respectfully request a prompt response.

Sincerely,




Lucas Colgrove, CTA
Casper, WY 82602