reply to post by Wookiep
Dear Wookiep,
I did have a good night, thank you. I trust yours went well, also.
I've just run into a problem. I don't know where we can call a halt to the candidate list. Let's assume that, because Johnson in on the ballots
in enough states, he could win the Presidency. But, so is Jill Stein, so she has to get in on it, too. Fair's fair, right?
But look at what that does. With four candidates, 136 Electoral college votes could win the Presidency. (You only need a majority, remember?) With
only 136 votes needed, we now have to include Virgil Goode, and Rocky Anderson, for a total now of six candidates on the stage. After all, they're
on enough ballots to give them a win. But with six candidates, you could win with just 91 votes. And on and on it goes.
Ok Charles, we can compromise and go with the top 4 in the debates, although if there are more on the ballot in the majority of the states,
I'm not sure that would be fair either, do you?
Very tempting, but my problem is still fairness and limits. Right now we have a limit of two
candidates, and Johnson is saying it's only right that they expand it to three. Say we do that. Then Jill Stein says, you have a limit of three,
it's only right that you expand it to four. Virgil Goode is number five, what argument do we use to keep him out of the debates? Sorry, rules are
rules?
I think someone will have to do one heck of a job of persuasion to get me to accept the number of ballots you're on as a sufficient credential for
the debate. Besides, remember that this is not governmental, they can do whatever they want. If we prove, 100%, that it's unfair but they don't
want to do it, it doesn't happen. I think a stronger case can be made by using the polling numbers or the turnout in the previous election.
(Oh, and the Gary Johnson law suit?
Really unlikely. He's claiming "restraint of trade," and restricting the "marketplace of ideas."
Neither of which makes much sense in this case.)
With respect,
Charles1952
