The 15 Percent Barrier

The criterion directly contravenes the wishes of the majority of American voters. Seventy-six percent of registered voter supported Ross Perot's inclusion in the 1996 debates, and 64 percent wanted Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan included in the 2000 presidential debates. Registered independents now constitute a plurality of voters, and two-thirds of Americans want a viable third-party to compete in federal races. (As the major parties and their funding sources have become increasingly similar, the electorate has becomes thirstier for alternate voices and agendas.) The CPD is relying on polling data to reject third party candidates although polling data often show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want third-party candidates in the debates. The CPD is simply posing the wrong polling question. If the CPD is going to rely on polling data, it should simply ask whom the public wants in the debates.

The criterion disregards the allocation of taxpayer funds. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, a party that receives five percent of the popular vote qualifies for federal matching funds for the next election. Setting the criteria at 15 percent in pre-debate polls therefore raises the question: How is it that taxpayers can finance a candidate's campaign, and yet not be able to see or hear him? Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York, said, "Simple rule: If you're going to give them taxpayers' money on the theory that they're credible candidates, then you ought to let them participate."

The criterion irrationally requires candidates to prove their viability before the general public knows much about them. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. said that the 15 percent threshold "excludes non-major party candidates on the basis of polls from a public who has not yet had an opportunity to hear from those candidates." The CPD is essentially predicting, from premature poll numbers, who will not win the election, and excluding those candidates. But aren't the voters, not the polling sample or the CPD, supposed to determine who will and will not win the election?

The criterion marginalizes the contributions of losing third-party candidates. Most third parties crumble. But, fleeting third-party movements and losing third-party candidates have made remarkable social and political contributions. Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the initiative, the referendum and the recall. The CPD nullifies the contributions of contemporary third-party candidates; excluded third-party candidates can't break the bipartisan conspiracy of silence on issues where the major parties, possibly so as not to upset business contributors, are at odds with most of the American people.

The criterion ignores the vast array of structural barriers that confront third party candidates. Non-major party candidates face the most discriminatory ballot access laws of any democracy in the world, a winner-take-all system, corporate and union contributions to the major parties, and scant media coverage. When was the last time you heard about Michael Badnarik or David Cobb on the nightly news?

In response to any suggestion that the criteria for inclusion be lowered, the CPD's first and foremost line of defense is, according to Executive Director Janet Brown, that "over 200 candidates run for president every four years. We can't let all of them on stage." Talking about 200 candidates, however, is entirely misleading. Granted, roughly 200 people file a presidential candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, including Billy Joe Clegg of the Clegg Won't Pull Your Leg Party. But, to lump these candidates with the likes of Perot, Nader, and Buchanan is absurd. How many of them were on enough state ballots to mathematically have a chance to capture the White House? In 1988, only two third-party candidates, in 1992 only three third-party candidates, in 1996 only four third-party candidates, in 2000 only five third-party candidates, and in 2004 only four third-party candidates were on enough state ballots to win an Electoral College majority. Richard Marin, pollster for The Washington Post, wrote, "The objection to the 15 percent cut point is exactly right. It's absurdly high."

A 15 percent criterion applied to all the presidential debates of the twentieth century would have excluded every third party candidate except for Congressman John Anderson, who participated in televised Republican primary debates. A five percent criterion applied to all previous presidential debates would have excluded every third-party candidate, except for John Anderson and Ross Perot. In fact, so formidable are the barriers to third party voices, a two percent criterion applied to all previous presidential debates would have included only three third-party candidates: John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, and Ralph Nader in 2000.

Related Links
What Happened in 1988?
What Happened in 1992?
What Happened in 1996?
What Happened in 2000?
What Happened in 2004?
The 15 Percent Barrier