Both major presidential candidates are viewed unfavorably by a majority of the country. Despite their historic unpopularity, they are the only candidates to meet the debate criteria set by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
That says a lot about the commission’s criteria.
Candidates who want to participate in the debates must qualify for enough state ballots to win a majority of electoral votes. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, formerly the Republican governor of New Mexico, will be on the ballot in all 50 states.
The other criterion is that they must poll 15 percent support in an average of select national polls. It is here that Johnson is coming up short. In the latest polls that the commission has agreed to use, Johnson averages less than 10 percent.
Even if they don’t support him now, Americans would probably like to hear what Johnson has to say. A recent USA Today/Suffolk University Poll found that three-quarters of Americans say third-party candidates should be allowed in the debates if they appear on a majority of state ballots. A Morning Consult poll found that 52 percent of voters want Johnson included in the debates, while 47 percent want the Green Party’s Jill Stein included.
That appears to leave Johnson trapped in a catch-22: Voters want to hear what he has to say in the debates so that they can decide if they support him. But to get invited, Johnson has to get the kind of support that’s nearly impossible to get without debate publicity.
While it’s extremely unlikely Johnson will win the presidency, it’s clear he will have a significant effect on the election’s outcome.
In the latest RealClearPolitics average with four candidates, less than 1 percentage point separates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. A minor defection to or from Johnson, who polls at almost 9 percent support, could decide the popular vote. And he could swing the election either way. Although in theory his libertarian message might be more attractive to disgruntled Republicans, he is polling very strongly among the young voters whom Clinton has to win big.
Given his importance, voters deserve to hear what Johnson has to say, and Clinton and Trump deserve to debate against Johnson.
To be sure, the Commission on Presidential Debates cannot just change the debate criteria in midstream. That would be like Major League Baseball announcing tomorrow, with less than two weeks left in the regular season, that four extra teams will be allowed in the playoffs. “Calvinball” should remain the only game where the rules change in the middle of the game.
But if a third-party candidate can’t qualify in 2016, with the major candidates historically unpopular, then when will it happen? It means that the commission should establish more lenient criteria for the 2020 election.
The rules could be changed, for example, so that invited candidates must have their support combine for at least 85 or 90 percent of the popular vote in national polls. On Sept. 15, 2012, Mitt Romney and President Obama combined for more than 94 percent of the vote. On Sept. 15, 2016, Clinton and Trump combine for only 83 percent.
That would give a third-party candidate like Johnson, and possibly Stein, a seat at the table when they might swing the election and voters are dissatisfied with the two major candidates. It would also keep third-party candidates out in a close race between two popular candidates.
The rules could also be changed so that earlier debates have more lenient criteria, as was done in the primaries. That would give third-party candidates a chance to get in one debate, but they’d have to perform well and increase their support in order to make the later ones. In that case, if a candidate from the first debate doesn’t meet the stricter criteria of the second or third debates, they couldn’t claim their voice hadn’t been heard.
The extraordinary factors in this election should be a lesson for the Commission on Presidential Debates: Your criteria are too strict.
Jason Russell is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
