Presidential Debates Petition

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

That's why I support the removal of the winner take all system and think we should move to a Maine/Nebraska system.

That plan just helps the Republicans by exaggerating the already disproportionate strength of the small states...I'm more referring to adopting preferential voting or proportional representation.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

Our electoral system mandates no such thing. Democrat and Republican controlled state legislatures have restricted ballot access. They hate the competition.

The Electoral College takes care of plurality outcomes at the national level.

I don't think ballot access is that big a deal.  The Libertarians are on every ballot and still get 0.5% every election; similar situation for the Greens.  The problem is the vote counting system which make a third-party vote effectively a totally wasted vote.   It is silly that strong Nader candidacy makes it more likely that we will elect a right-wing president.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

That's why I support the removal of the winner take all system and think we should move to a Maine/Nebraska system.

That plan just helps the Republicans by exaggerating the already disproportionate strength of the small states...I'm more referring to adopting preferential voting or proportional representation.

How do you figure? I believe Gore would have won if you broke it down by CDs. Lets keep it constitutional as well.

Gore and Bush won just about an equal number of congressional districts (I'm not sure of the exact number, but it was VERY close).  However, when you tack on the 2 bonus EVs for winning statewide, Bush would win by 18 EVs, because he won 30 states to Gore's 21.  SO Bush would have won by a much greater EV margin than he actually did.

Also, the Nebraska system would put too much control in the hands of partisan state legislatures...they would now not only be gerrymandering the Congress, but the Presidential election as well.  How much MORE contentious would DeLay's Texas redistricting have been if it also gave Bush another 5 EVs in addition to its effect on Congress?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

There should be one debate with all of the candidates who are on enough ballots to win.  After that, the should winnow the field to only those candidates who are polling in double digits.  

Third-party candidates always complain that if they can't get into the debate, they can't move in the polls...so give them a shot to move in the polls, but don't distract from the real contenders in the final weeks of the campaign.

But the real reason third-parties can't win is because our electoral system mandates only two serious parties.  Changing that is much more important than changing the debate format.

That's why I support the removal of the winner take all system and think we should move to a Maine/Nebraska system.

That plan just helps the Republicans by exaggerating the already disproportionate strength of the small states...I'm more referring to adopting preferential voting or proportional representation.

How do you figure? I believe Gore would have won if you broke it down by CDs. Lets keep it constitutional as well.

Gore and Bush won just about an equal number of congressional districts (I'm not sure of the exact number, but it was VERY close).  However, when you tack on the 2 bonus EVs for winning statewide, Bush would win by 18 EVs, because he won 30 states to Gore's 21.  SO Bush would have won by a much greater EV margin than he actually did.

Also, the Nebraska system would put too much control in the hands of partisan state legislatures...they would now not only be gerrymandering the Congress, but the Presidential election as well.  How much MORE contentious would DeLay's Texas redistricting have been if it also gave Bush another 5 EVs in addition to its effect on Congress?

Under that system I would eliminate the bonus. Forgot to mention it.

This might be more fair than our existing system then...although it would be much better if we have non-partisan redstricting nationwide.