Posted on Sep 28, 2016
Do 76% of Americans want Johnson-Weld on debate stage?
8.54K
51
65
2
2
0
Multiple polls show that a majority of Americans believe that 3rd parties should be allowed to debate.
Do 76% of Americans want Johnson-Weld on debate stage?
Posted from politifact.comPosted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Election 2016
Republicans
Democrats
Libertarian
Office of the President (POTUS) Election 2016 Republicans Democrats Libertarian
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
3
3
0
It's irrelevant what people want, the CPD set the rules decades ago. Johnson knows them well, he and his supporters should have addressed this long ago when they lost.
(3)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
MCPO Roger Collins - Holy hell.
Democracy (definition) - a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
Democracy (definition) - a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
(1)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
SPC James Harsh - which is exactly why we don't have a pure Democracy.
Check the definition above, then try to tell me we are not a constitutionally limited Democratic Republic.
Check the definition above, then try to tell me we are not a constitutionally limited Democratic Republic.
(1)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
MCPO Roger Collins - or perhaps you are just plain wrong and as such have taken a position that you are unable to defend.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
They deserve to be on that stage. A commission of a handful of individuals shouldn't get to tell Americans which candidates they get to hear from. This is horseshit imho.
(2)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
The which of us is broken still remains to be seen. hillary won't be potus though.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The Polling "question" is incorrectly posed.
Do "most" Americans favor inclusion of candidates who are mathematically capable of winning the general election being included in the election being allowed to participate in the debates? Yes.
What does that question actually mean? If a candidate is on all 50 states' ballots OR enough ballots where they can receive 270 electoral college votes, should they be included in the debates? Yes.
The CPD (a BI-Partisan committee composed of Democrats and Republicans) who controls the Debating Platform sets the rules. The rules are two fold. 1) The candidates must be mathematically cable of winning the general election (per the polling) AND 2) The candidate must have enough "support" or "national recognition" via the MEDIA (Private Enterprise) to justify participation.
The latter is the issue. The CPD (who took over from the League of Women's Voters) has set the standard at 15% (average) of X (I want to say it's 7) National Polls. However, the National Polling is "statistically flawed" in the way it is conducted. 1) Limited polling size, 2) Land Line only (limits age & demographics), 3) Time of Polling.
When you account for the Latter issue, it can be shown that the BI-Partisan (again Democrats & Republicans) at the minimum have at the minimum the perception of a "conflict of interest" regarding this.
There is nothing inherently wrong with excluding candidates who are NOT mathematically capable of winning the general election, though it could be argues that a local candidate could sway a State, but excluding a "viable" (mathematically capable of winning even if improbable) is unethical.
Do "most" Americans favor inclusion of candidates who are mathematically capable of winning the general election being included in the election being allowed to participate in the debates? Yes.
What does that question actually mean? If a candidate is on all 50 states' ballots OR enough ballots where they can receive 270 electoral college votes, should they be included in the debates? Yes.
The CPD (a BI-Partisan committee composed of Democrats and Republicans) who controls the Debating Platform sets the rules. The rules are two fold. 1) The candidates must be mathematically cable of winning the general election (per the polling) AND 2) The candidate must have enough "support" or "national recognition" via the MEDIA (Private Enterprise) to justify participation.
The latter is the issue. The CPD (who took over from the League of Women's Voters) has set the standard at 15% (average) of X (I want to say it's 7) National Polls. However, the National Polling is "statistically flawed" in the way it is conducted. 1) Limited polling size, 2) Land Line only (limits age & demographics), 3) Time of Polling.
When you account for the Latter issue, it can be shown that the BI-Partisan (again Democrats & Republicans) at the minimum have at the minimum the perception of a "conflict of interest" regarding this.
There is nothing inherently wrong with excluding candidates who are NOT mathematically capable of winning the general election, though it could be argues that a local candidate could sway a State, but excluding a "viable" (mathematically capable of winning even if improbable) is unethical.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google