I have very much enjoyed watching the first three debates this year. I believe debates are essential for the electorate to make an informed decision for the betterment of the nation. Unfortunately, one specific aspect of the Commission on Presidential Debates Candidate Selection Criteria is presenting a barrier to a fully informed electorate: the requirement of 15% support in the polls.
I eagerly watched all the debates in 2008 and made my decision between the two candidates running for president. Imagine my surprise when I found that my ballot had at least 6 names in the “President” category. Confidence in my decision plummeted. How can I just assume that there’s no one better than the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties? It’s not right, so I made it a point in 2012 to look into everyone on my ballot.
Selecting candidates for national debates can be no easy task, and the CPD nonpartisan criteria start off strong. Obviously, the only individuals in the debate should be those who are legally able to become president in this election. It also makes sense to require that candidates have made a sufficient enough effort to have the ballot access necessary to win the electoral college. So far, four candidates meet the requirements for 2012: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Dr. Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson. Let’s talk about the third and final qualification that knocked the last two individuals off that list.
“INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT”
The CPD looks at polls and only picks the names that it sees. This is the only criterion that relies on input from private organizations. This is the only criterion based on an arbitrary metric (15%? Why not 30? 5?). This is the only criterion that uses statistics with sampling errors and selection bias. This is the only criterion that is a partisan requirement. Effective polling is based on a limited number of closed-ended responses for each question. When asked, “If the elections were held today, for whom would you vote for President?” the available responses are limited to the two major party candidates. If a respondent gives any other answer, their preference is determined from just between those two candidates, and anything other than “Undecided” gets counted toward one of those two parties. So, if it’s impossible for a third party to even show up in the polling results, let alone with 15% of the support, how can these criteria be nonpartisan? An awful lot of trust is being placed in the polling institutions to determine the political landscape, when their position is only meant to report on opinions. Only a candidate who is being treated as a candidate will achieve the recognition requisite for public support, but they’re only treated as a candidate if they’ve shown mass public support. This process results in a vicious circle of third parties being disregarded and discredited, perpetuating the political monopoly of the two major parties.
I hope the CPD will think about what it means to be nonpartisan and consider removing any criteria that use opinion polling. We need fully informed voters, and the current system isn’t accomplishing that.
And yet, according to the 
The press release highlights the main public concerns. Amidst the rhetoric of appeals to children’s welfare, Markosek said, “People should have their hands on the wheel and be focused on the road when they are driving.” This offhanded conflation of focused drivers with hands-free drivers is the most glaring fallacy. With no other laws about where a driver’s hands can be, or what they can be touching, singling out cell phone use raises a red flag. If the purpose of the proposed law is to keep drivers’ hands on the wheel and eyes on the road, we expect to gain nothing by specifying an individual item that is not allowed to be in a driver’s hand, especially when there are several exceptions to that rule.
Echoed in all three of the quotes above is the fallacy that banning a single source of distraction will prevent distracted driving. This last quote perhaps recognizes that more needs to be done, but no further plan is discussed. The disconnect between intended goals and proposed legislation is growing enormously across the nation, and we’re paying for it with our liberties. In an era when 
Examine the goals, and work to meet them in a consistent manner. The fervor is over cell phones, but the justification is being cited as “distracted driving”. With distracted driving playing a part (not necessarily being the cause) in 
