Open Letter to Commission on Presidential Debates

Earlier today, I sent the letter that ends this post to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). I don't know about you, but I was deeply disappointed in the debate that occured on Monday, September 26, 2016. The debate had the air of a reality TV game show. That is not the attitude that I would like to see when the Presidency of the United States is on the line. Donald Trump confirmed my existing bias that his misogynistic, racist, and anti-religious mindset and undeveloped policy positions would be dangerous for the United States. While I admit that Hillary Clinton looked presidential and had a keener grasp on the issues, my concerns about her character, including her repeated dismissal of the email scandal as "something I would do differently," continue to deeply trouble me and were not adequately addressed during the debate.

Other candidates are running for office and appear on the ballots of all 50 states. These candidates also deserve to be on the debate stage. I'm not convinced that I would vote for them, but since the CPD's stated intention is voter education, then they owe it to the American public to include more candidates than two deeply distrusted and ethically suspect candidates on the debate stage.

If you agree, I encourage you to send your own letter to the CPD. I sent my letter as an email to comments@debates.org. Another option is info@debates.org. I found many other options including contacting the CPD Chairs. I believe that operating through these official channels, rather than contacting the Chairs directly, will produce a more respectful dialogue.

I believe people need information to be able to vote their conscience. For that reason, I encourage the CPD to include more voices in the debates.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. #voteyourconscience


Dear Members of the Board for the Commission on Presidential Debates:

First, thank you for the public service that you provide in arranging for the presidential debates. This is an important service that you provide for our country. I have watched the debates for my entire adult life and have found them informative and helpful in making my final decision.

As a concerned citizen, I am writing to request that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein be added to the currently scheduled debates. While neither meets the 15% poll criteria, both are certified on enough state ballots that the mathematical possibility exists for them to win the presidency. I appreciate your stated concern that your role is not to provide a stage to launch a presidential campaign. Nevertheless, particularly in this election year where the two major party candidates are deeply disliked and distrusted, it seems that a debate that only features those two candidates promotes an unsustainable status quo. I believe that American citizens are looking for alternatives and may not be sure where to find them.

At the very least, I would encourage the Commission to allow Johnson to debate. His poll numbers currently range between 8-12% and average around 10% which is only slightly below the 15% cut-off. I realize that Stein's numbers are much lower. Yet,recent polls show that a majority of Americans (around 65%) in both the Democratic and Republican parties support seeing Johnson and Stein share the debate stage with Clinton and Trump. While the support for those likely to vote for them may be low, their poll numbers for being on the debate stage are definitely past the 15% threshold of support. 

I ask for this change realizing that my preferred candidate, Evan McMullin, would not qualify under even these modified criteria. Nevertheless, I believe the United States can do better than the two major party candidates who I believe are largely polling above 15% simply because of the D or R associated with their name. 

I urge the Commission to reconsider its debate inclusion policies and add an additional person to the debate stage.

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely,

Angie Carter

Provo, Utah

Looking for Better Options

Watching the 2016 Presidential Election has made me concerned for the future of the United States' republican form of government. That may sound hyperbolic, but the popular groundswell for candidates who speak to people's fears or who play by a different set of rules than everyday Americans foreshadows problems down the road. In my humble opinion, both major political parties (the Republicans and the Democrats) have nominated candidates who are unfit to be president.

But this post is not about wringing my hands over the sorry state of politics. Rather it is a call to action. In discussing the unacceptable options presented by the Republican and Democratic parties this year, a few of my friends and I have decided to make our voices heard. Many people believe that they must vote for one of the two major parties. Certainly, the Electoral College system is set up to encourage that. But this election year provides opportunities for a third-party or independent candidate to win a couple of states. Maybe that won't change the final outcome this year, but if enough people vote for someone not affiliated with the two major parties, that groundswell will send a message to our candidates, our political parties, and our elected leaders that they need to consider the true Silent Majority who reside in the center of the political spectrum.

What we are suggesting is if everyone who finds the major party candidates unacceptable votes that way, then the majority of votes should go to other candidates. It is a well-known fact that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have unfavorable ratings between 57-67% (depending on which poll you look at and how recent it is). If 57% of voters who find them unacceptable vote for other candidates, that would send a strong, clear message to our political leaders that our vetting process is flawed and that we deserve much better candidates in the future. Whether those voters would be enough to change the Electoral College map, we cannot tell. What we do know is that, right now, neither of the two major party candidates match our depiction of someone who should represent the face and ideals of the United States of America. We encourage you to join us in researching the alternative candidates: Evan McMullin (independent), Gary Johnson (Libertarian), and Jill Stein (Green). In this space, we will review all the candidates' positions on issues. At this point, we have no plans to endorse someone.
Moreover, this campaign is not limited to presidential politics, even though it started with that. We encourage all voters to carefully examine all candidates for public office. Vet them carefully against your criteria, ignoring their party affiliation. Maybe as we voters start examining candidates for their stances on issues instead of their party affiliation, we will get representatives who truly represent us.

Look for "Vote Your Conscience" signs around Provo, Utah, (and maybe elsewhere) encouraging people to actively research the available candidates and choose the person who they believe will be the best leaders.