3rd party/Indie ballot access megathred

[jamestroll]

Excellent! Gary Johnson, you can do it! Campaign HARD for GOP leaning voters in Missouri, Georgia, North Carolina, and perhaps South Carolina Also.

Do not forget ARIZONA! You can win a lot of [gop leaning] independents there. It is very important that you make a statement in those states.. and flip them to Hillary Clinton!

There is no evidence that he's "taking votes away" from Trump.

Right now, I think he hurts Hillary slightly more than Trump. But what I would like him to do is campaign hard in AZ, MO, NC, GA and MO for GOP leaning suburbanites who lean Republican, so that Hillary can win those states. Makes sense?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/09/09/official-gary-johnson-now-ballots-50-states/

[Seneca]

Good. Hopefully this will encourage the debate committee to make an exception for him if he doesn't meet the 15% threshold. Any candidate that is on the ballot in enough states that they could theoretically win the electoral college ought to be treated the same, regardless of which party nominated them.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

http://ballot-access.org/2016/09/10/kentucky-secretary-of-state-says-evan-mcmullin-and-rocky-de-la-fuente-petitions-are-valid/

McMuffin and De La Fuente made the ballot in Kentucky

[Sorenroy]

Good. Hopefully this will encourage the debate committee to make an exception for him if he doesn't meet the 15% threshold. Any candidate that is on the ballot in enough states that they could theoretically win the electoral college ought to be treated the same, regardless of which party nominated them.

They are. That is why the rule is "be at 15%" not "be a Democrat or Republican". Your criticism isn't that the candidates are all being treated the same (which they are), your criticism rests in the fact that the debate rules restrict third parties to the point at which they essentially do stomp down everyone but the two established choices.

[Seneca]

Good. Hopefully this will encourage the debate committee to make an exception for him if he doesn't meet the 15% threshold. Any candidate that is on the ballot in enough states that they could theoretically win the electoral college ought to be treated the same, regardless of which party nominated them.

They are. That is why the rule is "be at 15%" not "be a Democrat or Republican". Your criticism isn't that the candidates are all being treated the same (which they are), your criticism rests in the fact that the debate rules restrict third parties to the point at which they essentially do stomp down everyone but the two established choices.

Ballot access is complete separate from polling averages. My argument is that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states that they could theoretically win 270 electoral votes then they should be included in the debates, regardless of how they are polling.

[Mr. Morden]

Final ballot access:

Johnson/Weld (L) All 50 states + DC

Stein/Baraka (G) 44 states + DC, 3 write-in states (GA, NC, IN), not on the ballot in NV, OK, SD

Extremely impressive for both. Hopefully they get included in the exit polls.

Why wouldn't they be included in the exit polls?  Particularly Johnson.  If Johnson even gets 3% of the vote and they don't include him in the exit poll, the exit pollster would look ridiculous.

[The Other Castro]

The Libertarian Party confirms that it now has access to all 50 states + DC.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Good. Hopefully this will encourage the debate committee to make an exception for him if he doesn't meet the 15% threshold. Any candidate that is on the ballot in enough states that they could theoretically win the electoral college ought to be treated the same, regardless of which party nominated them.

They are. That is why the rule is "be at 15%" not "be a Democrat or Republican". Your criticism isn't that the candidates are all being treated the same (which they are), your criticism rests in the fact that the debate rules restrict third parties to the point at which they essentially do stomp down everyone but the two established choices.

Ballot access is complete separate from polling averages. My argument is that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states that they could theoretically win 270 electoral votes then they should be included in the debates, regardless of how they are polling.

I have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, it would be good for the American voters to have more choices in any election.  It seems especially desirable this year, with both major party candidates being historically unpopular.  OTOH, it's certainly true that debates can be overly cluttered -- look what happened in the GOP primary this year.  IMO, that doesn't serve the voters well.

Perhaps a compromise would be to have two rounds of debates? Start with one debate (or maybe two) open to all candidates with enough ballot access to theoretically win 270 EV.  For later rounds, winnow it down to only those above X% in the polls (whether 15 is the right value for X is a separate question).  There could also be an undercard debate for those below X%.  If there was a candidate on the edge of viability, a good performance in the initial debate could raise their poll standing and get them into the later rounds.

[Eraserhead]

Final ballot access:

Johnson/Weld (L) All 50 states + DC

Stein/Baraka (G) 44 states + DC, 3 write-in states (GA, NC, IN), not on the ballot in NV, OK, SD

Extremely impressive for both. Hopefully they get included in the exit polls.

Why wouldn't they be included in the exit polls?  Particularly Johnson.  If Johnson even gets 3% of the vote and they don't include him in the exit poll, the exit pollster would look ridiculous.

Because Edison Research (the exit pollster that is always used) doesn't make the call on that, the member organizations of the National Election Pool do. Neither Johnson or Stein were included as options in the 2012 exit, only the the all-encompassing "other" option was.

While the "other" option will still be there, I'd be pretty surprised if at least Johnson wasn't included this time around. It's a tougher call for Stein.