Result of Third-Party Lawsuit Could Decide Outcome of 2016 Election

Result of Third-Party Lawsuit Could Decide Outcome of 2016 Election


A lawsuit filed on September 26, 2015 in Washington D.C. (and its eventual outcome) may turn out to be the most important event of the 2016 presidential election.

Virtually ignored by all but a handful of alternative media outlets, this suit has the power to destroy the existing political power structure ─ much like the ridesharing firms, Uber and Lyft, threaten the antiquated taxi industry. If successful, it will permanently expand the number of candidates on the debate stage during the general election by proving that the Commission on Presidential Debates is in violation of current anti-trust law. Politics is not just free speech; it’s also big business.

In a nation that prides itself on choice, with endless varieties of almost anything imaginable, why are we limited to hearing from just Republicans and Democrats when debating our nation’s future? The reason is that you, as a citizen, are being subconsciously herded under the guise of “preventing confusion.”

Libertarians, Greens, Reform, Constitutional, and Independents are allowed, to a point, to voice their issues, but the most important qualifier has always been the official debate stage. Inclusion on this stage is, in effect, the social proof that says to the American voter: this candidate is for real and should be considered.

National debates, being the most important forum to present a candidate’s ideas to the American voter, have the most restrictive qualifiers for inclusion. These qualifiers are conveniently set by Republicans and Democrats masquerading as unbiased arbiters. These biased members are deciding the rules, rather than using an independent organization like the League of Women Voters, because they fear competition.

The existing debate rules state that a presidential candidate must “have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five national public opinion polling organizations selected by CPD, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.” This 15-percent hurtle leaves out important criteria, such as how polls should be worded, which polling organizations will be used, and when these polls should be taken. Cherry picking polling companies and adjusting the timing are just a few ways to tilt the outcome.

More significant to the discussion is that the Commission fails to address the most vital element, which is that polls are becoming increasingly unreliable each year in the cell phone age. Polling has become so untrustworthy that renowned pollster, Gallup, is getting out of the presidential polling business because it admits it can’t get accurate results. If an organization such as Gallup is throwing in the towel, then the reliability of every poll is in question.

In the 2012 election, Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein were not included in approximately 90 percent of the popular polls. Most of the time, these polls used “none of the above” or “someone else” rather than disclosing their names, even though they were listed on the ballot. The average voter would be hard pressed to find any poll that covered third parties in any meaningful way.

Republicans and Democrats may not agree on much, but there is no dispute between them that only their two parties should be competing for Americans’ votes. The political establishments in both major parties do everything within their power to squash nontraditional viewpoints.

Romney-Obama debate as competitive as professional wrestling

As for other cuts, Romney confirmed he’s really not making any. When Obama peddled the canard that the Paul Ryan budget would make draconian cuts to federal spending on education, Romney truthfully answered, “I’m not cutting education.” Ditto for Medicaid. Ditto for the whole federal monster. Romney isn’t going to cut a penny. He’s going to increase spending. So is Obama.

via megalextoria.com

When Romney (or most politicians) refer to cuts, what they usually mean is that they are not going to increase spending as quickly. Spending, the debt and most likely the deficit will all continue to grow under Romney just as they will under Obama. Whatever net spending differences there actually are are so insignificant as to not be worth talking about.

16 Critical Economic Issues That Obama And Romney Avoided During The Debate

Perhaps the biggest failure on Wednesday night was debate moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS. His questions were about as far from “hard hitting” as you could get.

The hour and a half debate was almost entirely about the economy, and yet almost all of the critical economic issues were ignored.

Yes, Obama and Romney have slight differences when it comes to tax rates and regulations, but those small differences are not going to do much to change the direction of this country one way or another.

via megalextoria.com

Open up the Debates!

It’s “a rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly,” charges Johnson lieutenant Ron Nielson. Nielson is biased, of course, but he’s not wrong. The major party organizations created the CPD — its first co-chairs were the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties — in order to seize control of the debates from the independent League of Women Voters. The scam worked: The League pulled out in 1988, decrying “a fraud on the American voter.

via megalextoria.com

I think there should be at least two "third party" candidates in the debates. At least the first few. Even if they don't win they can at least force discussion of some issues that the big two seem to ignore...