Jill Stein Should Be Part of a Four-Way Presidential Debate
Monday, 22 August 2016 00:00 By John Nichols, The Nation | Op-Ed
Jill Stein speaks at the Green Party Presidential Candidate Town Hall in
Mesa, Arizona, on March 12, 2016. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
If you want journalism that challenges authority and is accountable to you
-- not to government or corporate interests -- then make a donation to
Truthout today!
After the Republicans and Democrats finished their conventions in late July,
the Green Party gathered this month to nominate Dr. Jill Stein for the
presidency. Stein's campaign -- with her party on ballot lines in the
majority of states, and her poll numbers surging ahead of Green numbers from
recent presidential elections -- has the potential to be a breakthrough bid
for the Greens, and for a more robust democracy.
Stein recognized the prospect in an optimistic yet urgent acceptance speech
in which she spoke of "unstoppable momentum for transformational change."
The candidate who talks of ushering in a "Green New Deal" told the Green
Party Convention that the party has "an historic opportunity, an historic
responsibility to be the agents of that change. As Martin Luther King said,
'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' I
know that arc is bending in us, and through us. And we are actors in
something much bigger than us as we struggle for justice, for peace, for
community, for healing."
Stein's appeal drew an enthusiastic response from her supporters, and she
gained a good deal of media attention.
But there are no guarantees that her candidacy will succeed -- along with
that of Libertarian Gary Johnson -- in clearing the way for the more diverse
and competitive multi-party politics that is common in other countries but
relatively rare in the recent history of the United States.
For that to happen, supporters of the Green nominee, as well as progressives
who will be inclined to back Democrat Hillary Clinton in order to block the
candidacy of Republican Donald Trump but who still want a broader debate,
will have to advocate for something that is rare in presidential politics:
fair play.
Stein is not just up against the Democratic and Republican nominees. She is
up against a rigid two-party system that erects high barriers to those who
seek to open up the process.
Candidates who are on enough ballot lines to be elected president should be
included in the debates.
It is uncommon for independent and third-party candidates to get over and
around those barriers.
But this is an uncommon year in American politics. Libertarian presidential
candidate Gary Johnson has already getting close to the political high
ground where a third-party candidate is treated as seriously as the nominee
of one of the two major parties. And Stein is climbing as well, having just
appeared on CNN for a prime-time special highlighting her candidacy. Stein's
progress is significant because, in order to have a real debate in American
politics, it is vital to include voices from across the political spectrum.
A debate featuring Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, and
Johnson would represent an improvement on what we have seen in recent
presidential races.
A debate between Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein would represent an even
greater improvement.
Could it happen?
The Green nominee's approach, and the year in which she is running, make it
possible to imagine that she could find a place on this fall's debate
stages.
Even people who do not intend to vote Green or Libertarian should want
credible contenders to be heard.
Stein is making her second bid for the presidency, which is an asset.
Third-party candidates have historically benefited from making multiple
bids. A century ago, Eugene Victor Debs made five runs for the presidency on
the Socialist Party line, while Norman Thomas made six. History records that
neither man won the nation's top job. But their high-profile campaigns
popularized "radical" ideas such as Social Security programs for the elderly
and extending civil rights to all Americans.
Stein is mounting her bid in a moment of great political volatility, which
is significant. Third parties often record strong showings in turbulent
times. Debs won almost one million votes in 1920, when he ran from the jail
cell to which he had been confined during the "Red Scare" assault on civil
liberties following World War I. Thomas received almost as many votes in
1932, in the first presidential election of the Great Depression era.
No one knows what vote Stein may get this time, though polls suggest that
both she and Johnson are running far better this year than in 2012. (The
Libertarian won 1,275,951 votes that year, while the Green received
469,628.) A number of polls have Johnson, the former Republican governor of
New Mexico, in double digits; and Stein has frequently been at 5 percent in
recent national surveys. (In states such as California and Colorado, her
numbers have been even higher.)
Does this mean that Johnson or Stein could "take off" and be elected
president? History is not generous in this regard; the last time a
third-party candidate surpassed either major-party contender was in 1912,
when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (running as a "Bull
Moose" Progressive) finished ahead of Republican President William Howard
Taft. Both men lost that year to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and "major"
parties have dominated the top two spots ever since.
This year, both Johnson and Stein will face objections from those who fear
that support for alternative candidacies might "spoil" the election by
drawing votes away from major-party contenders. There is nothing wrong with
this discussion; it is entirely reasonable, for instance, for progressives
who are frightened by Trump's candidacy to urge voters to support Clinton as
the strongest alternative to an extremist Republican. There can and should
be serious discourse about how to approach the 2016 election. But that does
not mean that electoral options should be limited. The United States needs a
broader politics, and the prospect that Johnson and Stein could open up the
process this year ought to excite small-"d" democrats.
Even people who do not intend to vote Green or Libertarian can and should
support efforts by credible contenders to secure ballot positions in states
that have historically made it hard for third-party contenders to compete.
It is simply wrong that the United States does not have universal election
rules, creating a circumstance where obtaining ballot status is easy in some
states and daunting in others.
As important as ballot access is debate access.
The Commission on Presidential Debates, which was set up by leaders of the
two major parties with an eye toward controlling and constraining the most
important exchanges during presidential elections, will not make things
easy. Johnson is closer to the threshold that the CPD has established for
debate participation -- a steady 15 percent in the polls -- and he is
already getting the lion's share of attention as debates about the debates
ramp up.
A functional democracy should be able to find room for a real debate
involving a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, and a Green. As Stein's
campaign argues, correctly, "Voters have a right to hear directly from their
possible choices for the highest office in the land."
Unfortunately, that may not happen. It is quite possible -- arguably likely
-- that both Stein and Johnson could be ruled out of the debates under the
arbitrary rules established by the CPD.
That would be a travesty. And it does not have to happen.
As Reason magazine's Matt Welch suggests, the commission should tweak its
rules "if for no other reason than to fulfill its stated mission, which
reads in part 'to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general
election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.'"
"You cannot provide the best possible information by limiting the debate to
Trump and Clinton -- the two most disliked presidential nominees in modern
history," argues Welch. "Besides, even with our seemingly inevitable
two-party sorting process, a full 20 percent of registered voters
consistently indicate that they will not be pulling the lever for either D
or R. Johnson and Stein, meanwhile, have combined for the same national
polling percentage -- just a tick below 13 -- both before and after the
major-party conventions, suggesting that the traditional halving of
third-party polls between summer and election day might not be happening
this campaign season."
The CPD can and will set baseline standards for debate participation. But
those standards should err on the side of more debate, not less. The good
basic approach would be to include candidates who have qualified for enough
state ballots to win 270 electoral votes -- the threshold for winning the
presidency. Getting on that many ballot lines requires seriousness and a
measurable level of support nationally, and those candidates who achieve
that should be included, at the very least, in the first debate.
If the CPD insists on a more rigid standard (as is likely), then a 5 percent
polling threshold -- far higher than was required to gain a place on the
main stage of this year's Republican and Democratic debates -- would be
dramatically more reasonable than the current 15 percent threshold.
The Libertarians and the Greens will meet the ballot-line standard. And both
parties can point to recent polls where they have cleared the 5 percent
threshold. That should be sufficient to make room for Gary Johnson and Jill
Stein on this fall's debate stages.
This story originally appeared in The Nation.
Copyright C 2016 The Nation 2016 distributed by Agence Global.
JOHN NICHOLS
John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written The Nation's
Online Beat since 1999, is their Washington DC correspondent, and
contributing writer for The Progressive and In These Times. He is also the
associate editor of the Capital Times, the daily newspaper in Madison,
Wisconsin. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Chicago Tribune
and dozens of other newspapers, and he is a frequent guest on radio and
television programs as a commentator on politics and media issues. Nichols
lives in Madison, Wisconsin and Washington, DC.
RELATED STORIES
"An Age of the Statistically Unlikely": An Interview With Presidential
Candidate Jill Stein
By Candice Bernd, Truthout | Interview
Green Party's Jill Stein Shares Her "Plan B" for Bernie Sanders Supporters:
A Green New Deal
By Candice Bernd, Truthout | Interview
Beyond a Protest Party: What Will It Take for the Green Party to Start
Winning?
By Candice Bernd, Truthout | News Analysis
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Jill Stein Should Be Part of a Four-Way Presidential Debate
Monday, 22 August 2016 00:00 By John Nichols, The Nation | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Jill Stein speaks at the Green Party Presidential Candidate Town
Hall in Mesa, Arizona, on March 12, 2016. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
. If you want journalism that challenges authority and is accountable
to you -- not to government or corporate interests -- then make a donation
to Truthout today!
After the Republicans and Democrats finished their conventions in late July,
the Green Party gathered this month to nominate Dr. Jill Stein for the
presidency. Stein's campaign -- with her party on ballot lines in the
majority of states, and her poll numbers surging ahead of Green numbers from
recent presidential elections -- has the potential to be a breakthrough bid
for the Greens, and for a more robust democracy.
Stein recognized the prospect in an optimistic yet urgent acceptance speech
in which she spoke of "unstoppable momentum for transformational change."
The candidate who talks of ushering in a "Green New Deal" told the Green
Party Convention that the party has "an historic opportunity, an historic
responsibility to be the agents of that change. As Martin Luther King said,
'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' I
know that arc is bending in us, and through us. And we are actors in
something much bigger than us as we struggle for justice, for peace, for
community, for healing."
Stein's appeal drew an enthusiastic response from her supporters, and she
gained a good deal of media attention.
But there are no guarantees that her candidacy will succeed -- along with
that of Libertarian Gary Johnson -- in clearing the way for the more diverse
and competitive multi-party politics that is common in other countries but
relatively rare in the recent history of the United States.
For that to happen, supporters of the Green nominee, as well as progressives
who will be inclined to back Democrat Hillary Clinton in order to block the
candidacy of Republican Donald Trump but who still want a broader debate,
will have to advocate for something that is rare in presidential politics:
fair play.
Stein is not just up against the Democratic and Republican nominees. She is
up against a rigid two-party system that erects high barriers to those who
seek to open up the process.
Candidates who are on enough ballot lines to be elected president should be
included in the debates.
http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Candidates+who+are+on+enough+ballot+lin
es+to+be+elected+president+should+be+included+in+the+debates.%20http://bit.l
y/2bsEi5E
It is uncommon for independent and third-party candidates to get over and
around those barriers.
But this is an uncommon year in American politics. Libertarian presidential
candidate Gary Johnson has already getting close to the political high
ground where a third-party candidate is treated as seriously as the nominee
of one of the two major parties. And Stein is climbing as well, having just
appeared on CNN for a prime-time special highlighting her candidacy. Stein's
progress is significant because, in order to have a real debate in American
politics, it is vital to include voices from across the political spectrum.
A debate featuring Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, and
Johnson would represent an improvement on what we have seen in recent
presidential races.
A debate between Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein would represent an even
greater improvement.
Could it happen?
The Green nominee's approach, and the year in which she is running, make it
possible to imagine that she could find a place on this fall's debate
stages.
Even people who do not intend to vote Green or Libertarian should want
credible contenders to be heard.
http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Even+people+who+do+not+intend+to+vote+G
reen+or+Libertarian+should+want+credible+contenders+to+be+heard.%20http://bi
t.ly/2bsEi5E
Stein is making her second bid for the presidency, which is an asset.
Third-party candidates have historically benefited from making multiple
bids. A century ago, Eugene Victor Debs made five runs for the presidency on
the Socialist Party line, while Norman Thomas made six. History records that
neither man won the nation's top job. But their high-profile campaigns
popularized "radical" ideas such as Social Security programs for the elderly
and extending civil rights to all Americans.
Stein is mounting her bid in a moment of great political volatility, which
is significant. Third parties often record strong showings in turbulent
times. Debs won almost one million votes in 1920, when he ran from the jail
cell to which he had been confined during the "Red Scare" assault on civil
liberties following World War I. Thomas received almost as many votes in
1932, in the first presidential election of the Great Depression era.
No one knows what vote Stein may get this time, though polls suggest that
both she and Johnson are running far better this year than in 2012. (The
Libertarian won 1,275,951 votes that year, while the Green received
469,628.) A number of polls have Johnson, the former Republican governor of
New Mexico, in double digits; and Stein has frequently been at 5 percent in
recent national surveys. (In states such as California and Colorado, her
numbers have been even higher.)
Does this mean that Johnson or Stein could "take off" and be elected
president? History is not generous in this regard; the last time a
third-party candidate surpassed either major-party contender was in 1912,
when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (running as a "Bull
Moose" Progressive) finished ahead of Republican President William Howard
Taft. Both men lost that year to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and "major"
parties have dominated the top two spots ever since.
This year, both Johnson and Stein will face objections from those who fear
that support for alternative candidacies might "spoil" the election by
drawing votes away from major-party contenders. There is nothing wrong with
this discussion; it is entirely reasonable, for instance, for progressives
who are frightened by Trump's candidacy to urge voters to support Clinton as
the strongest alternative to an extremist Republican. There can and should
be serious discourse about how to approach the 2016 election. But that does
not mean that electoral options should be limited. The United States needs a
broader politics, and the prospect that Johnson and Stein could open up the
process this year ought to excite small-"d" democrats.
Even people who do not intend to vote Green or Libertarian can and should
support efforts by credible contenders to secure ballot positions in states
that have historically made it hard for third-party contenders to compete.
It is simply wrong that the United States does not have universal election
rules, creating a circumstance where obtaining ballot status is easy in some
states and daunting in others.
As important as ballot access is debate access.
The Commission on Presidential Debates, which was set up by leaders of the
two major parties with an eye toward controlling and constraining the most
important exchanges during presidential elections, will not make things
easy. Johnson is closer to the threshold that the CPD has established for
debate participation -- a steady 15 percent in the polls -- and he is
already getting the lion's share of attention as debates about the debates
ramp up.
A functional democracy should be able to find room for a real debate
involving a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, and a Green. As Stein's
campaign argues, correctly, "Voters have a right to hear directly from their
possible choices for the highest office in the land."
Unfortunately, that may not happen. It is quite possible -- arguably likely
-- that both Stein and Johnson could be ruled out of the debates under the
arbitrary rules established by the CPD.
That would be a travesty. And it does not have to happen.
As Reason magazine's Matt Welch suggests, the commission should tweak its
rules "if for no other reason than to fulfill its stated mission, which
reads in part 'to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general
election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.'"
"You cannot provide the best possible information by limiting the debate to
Trump and Clinton -- the two most disliked presidential nominees in modern
history," argues Welch. "Besides, even with our seemingly inevitable
two-party sorting process, a full 20 percent of registered voters
consistently indicate that they will not be pulling the lever for either D
or R. Johnson and Stein, meanwhile, have combined for the same national
polling percentage -- just a tick below 13 -- both before and after the
major-party conventions, suggesting that the traditional halving of
third-party polls between summer and election day might not be happening
this campaign season."
The CPD can and will set baseline standards for debate participation. But
those standards should err on the side of more debate, not less. The good
basic approach would be to include candidates who have qualified for enough
state ballots to win 270 electoral votes -- the threshold for winning the
presidency. Getting on that many ballot lines requires seriousness and a
measurable level of support nationally, and those candidates who achieve
that should be included, at the very least, in the first debate.
If the CPD insists on a more rigid standard (as is likely), then a 5 percent
polling threshold -- far higher than was required to gain a place on the
main stage of this year's Republican and Democratic debates -- would be
dramatically more reasonable than the current 15 percent threshold.
The Libertarians and the Greens will meet the ballot-line standard. And both
parties can point to recent polls where they have cleared the 5 percent
threshold. That should be sufficient to make room for Gary Johnson and Jill
Stein on this fall's debate stages.
This story originally appeared in The Nation.
Copyright C 2016 The Nation 2016 distributed by Agence Global.
John Nichols
John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written The Nation's
Online Beat since 1999, is their Washington DC correspondent, and
contributing writer for The Progressive and In These Times. He is also the
associate editor of the Capital Times, the daily newspaper in Madison,
Wisconsin. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Chicago Tribune
and dozens of other newspapers, and he is a frequent guest on radio and
television programs as a commentator on politics and media issues. Nichols
lives in Madison, Wisconsin and Washington, DC.
Related Stories
"An Age of the Statistically Unlikely": An Interview With Presidential
Candidate Jill Stein
By Candice Bernd, Truthout | InterviewGreen Party's Jill Stein Shares Her
"Plan B" for Bernie Sanders Supporters: A Green New Deal
By Candice Bernd, Truthout | InterviewBeyond a Protest Party: What Will It
Take for the Green Party to Start Winning?
By Candice Bernd, Truthout | News Analysis
Show Comments
