Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Could the presidential debates look different this fall?


"As it stands now, if the president chooses not to debate the Democratic nominee, it is much more likely that no debates will be held, thus denying voters an opportunity to hear from the candidates," writes Shawn Griffiths.

Tetra Images/Getty Images

Griffiths is a contributor to Independent Voter News.

The rules that govern American elections were not set up by a neutral government board or body. They were set up by the Republican and Democratic parties — not to promote fair competition or advance choice, but to ensure a political advantage.

As former Gehl Foods CEO Katherine Gehl puts it, the political industry "is the only industry where people are told competition is bad for the consumer."

One critical cog to this anti-competitive electoral machine is the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has stacked the deck so high for third party or independent candidates that it is impossible for even a third candidate to qualify for the debate stage. However, a lawsuit challenging the commission's rules could significantly change the competitive landscape of 2020 and future presidential elections.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments Feb. 24 in Level the Playing Field v. FEC — a lawsuit that advocacy group filed in 2015 along with its CEO, Peter Ackerman, and the national Green and Libertarian Parties. The suit asserts the debate commission's directors have violated federal law requiring the commission to be "nonpartisan" and use "objective criteria" in deciding who gets to appear on the presidential debate stage.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Level the Playing Field cites extensive evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates is in fact a partnership of the Republican and Democratic parties and has adopted rules that favor the major party nominees while excluding everyone else.

To quickly recap, the panel's own rules for being in the debate say participants must meet three criteria. They must be qualified to run for president, be on the ballot in states with at least 270 electoral votes — the minimum required to win the White House – and must have at least 15 percent support in five national polls handpicked by the debate commission.

The plaintiffs argue that the last criterion is one that only the Republican and Democratic nominees can reasonably achieve in the current political landscape, and thus the debate commission illegally excludes third party and independent candidates.

Third party and independent candidates are ignored by the media, their names are buried by pollsters, and they must spend all their resources just to obtain and keep ballot access. Meanwhile, the cost to buy the necessary media time and online ads to build the name ID needed to get to 15 percent in the polls would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a steep mountain to climb, especially when these candidates have been anchored to such a large boulder.

"The CPD is a partisan organization designed to ensure that every four years no candidate unaligned with either major party can compete for the presidency, and if you can't get into the debates, you can't win. This is reason that great Americans will not run for president as Independents, to the detriment of all Americans," Level the Playing Field's Ackerman has said.

It is a fact the debate commission was created as a partnership between the national Republican and Democratic parties. It is a fact that many of its current directors have political or financial ties to the major parties. One of its current co-chairs is even a former chair of the Republican Party.

In February 2017, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled the Federal Election Commission had "acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law" in its response to complaints against the debate commission. The FEC was ordered to give a thorough review of the debate commission's structure and its rules, but again, the FEC quickly dismissed the evidence presented. Level the Playing Field filed another complaint demanding an explanation or a change to the rules. However, that same judge that had ruled in its favor in 2017 dismissed the case in early 2019.

In their appeal, the plaintiffs have emphasized an urgency for the court to intervene as the presidential nomination process is already in full swing and there are only months before the first general election debate — that is, if there are any general election debates at all.

Providing debate rules allowing a fairer shot at competition could have an even greater impact this year, since President Trump raised the possibility in December that he may skip the debates — opening the door for an independent or third party candidate to share the stage with the Democratic nominee.

That will only happen, though, if the rules change. As it stands now, if the president chooses not to debate the Democratic nominee, it is much more likely that no debates will be held, thus denying voters an opportunity to hear from the candidates.

Visit for more coverage from Independent Voter News.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less