Some have argued that the pundits mislead the public in the 2016 presidential election, while others claim that there was a catastrophic data failure in the polling that rendered analysts incapable of predicting the voting outcome:

But obviously both polls and pundits must share the blame for creating a false illusion of accuracy, with the onus really going to polling given that there are two fundamental and inherent errors in polling that can never be corrected:

1) Missing underrepresented voters

2) Self-fulfilling prophecy

First, almost by definition, unusual voters will always be missed by pollsters because they are underrepresented in the data. This means that a surprise candidacy like Trump’s, or a robust third party candidate, will not be fully seen in the polling. The failure of the polls in the 2016 election is fundamentally the result of ignoring minority voices, that is, voters that vote differently because they think differently than the sample of voters pollsters deemed to be representative of the whole country.

Although the presidential debates is a forum that would allow these minority, shy or unusual voters to be seen and heard, the 15% national polling requirement presidential candidates must meet for entry into the debates ensures that these voters stay silent. The use of the 15% polling criteria acts to prevent already underrepresented voters from being recognized by the pollsters, further increasing sampling errors.

Second, the number one reason people gave me for not supporting Gary Johnson was “but he is doing so poorly in the polls!” It was a self-fulfilling prophecy created solely, and I would argue intentionally, by this false illusion of accuracy. The fact is that the polls, and the trumpeting of them, forced many people to not vote for third party candidates that they actually preferred because they were led to believe that third parties could not win by the polls and the pundits. Expectations and predictions, particularly those coming from experts being promoted by the media, have the effect of making that which was expected and predicted become reality.

The consequence of these errors means that Trump’s presidency was essentially made possible by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Their 15% national polling requirement imposed on third party candidates to allow them to debate the establishment candidates misses, under-samples and/or tamps down voters that third parties appeal to, as evidenced by the historically low voter turnout, and it creates a Catch-22 that impedes these candidates from reaching their supporters by keeping them out of the presidential debates, thus decreasing their polling numbers further.

In sum, the CPD decision to exclude third parties from participating in the presidential debates by using the 15% national polling requirement keeps the public uninformed about other viable candidates, particularly those that would appeal to underrepresented, silent blocks that are further marginalized and disenfranchised by the exclusion of their preferred candidates from the presidential debates. How is stacking the deck in favor of the establishment candidates in order to allow them to hold on to power ethical? How does this serve the public’s interest?

If the CPD was afraid that an inexperienced, morally dubious candidate would be propelled to the presidency by a gullible public, they created that reality not because voters were exposed to more choices, but because they were restricted to the two establishment choices.

Gary Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 states, plus D.C., and Jill Stein was on the ballot in 45 states, plus D.C. Both had a path to reach 270 electoral votes. This should be the only requirement put forth to join the presidential debate stage.

The imposition of polling requirements by the CPD amounts to an abuse of power given the great possibility of inaccuracy in the polls and the real impact polling results, and the media propagation of them, have on decreasing votes for third party candidates due to self-fulfilling prophecy. It smacks of collusion between the Republican and Democratic parties to keep third parties out by imposing a hurdle that has never historically been achieved. It discredits and tarnishes third party candidates in the eyes of the media and the public, preventing them from being given serious consideration solely as a result of being excluded from the debates. It infringes on the free speech rights of third party candidates by keeping them out of a public forum, and it does a disservice to the public and the state.

Why not let the voters decide based on an honest debate between presidential candidates about the role of government? Isn’t a well informed citizenry the bedrock of a functioning democracy?

Why are the establishment parties afraid to be challenged by new voices, and why should they be protected from having to defend their proposals? Why must they use this heavy-handed tyrannical method to keep the public trapped in a two party duopoly that does not represent about 40% of eligible voters, that is, the 90 million people who did NOT vote in the 2016 presidential election:

If a third party candidate cannot persuade voters from the presidential debate stage, then the duopoly continues, so what is there to lose? If adding more podiums to the debate stage means more debates need to be held, why wouldn’t this be an overall good?

The forced choice between the “lesser of two evils” is moving us toward increased disenfranchisement of the population and increased tendencies toward authoritarianism. At some point we must put country before party, and given the outcome of this election, we have reached that point.

Preventing third party candidates from being heard on the issues by excluding them from the presidential debates goes against the core founding principles of this nation. It goes against a free and open society itself.

We need to change this now!

Would you use your voice and your standing to call for the removal of polling as a requirement that must be met for candidate participation in the presidential debates? Candidates for president should instead be deemed viable if they are on enough ballots across the US to net 270 electoral votes, and that should be the only hurdle imposed for a place on the debate stage. The time has come to stop protecting the establishment parties and to stop marginalizing third party candidates and their supporters. If we are to succeed as a pluralistic society, we can no longer afford to ignore nearly 40% of this country’s eligible voters.

The continuation of our democratic republic and of our most cherished traditions about fairness and justice depends on it.

Otherwise, in 2024 we may see disciples of Louis Farrakhan and David Duke as the nominees for the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, and still people will marginalize and demonize third parties who will be the only ones standing athwart history yelling STOP!