As polling experts of all ideological stripes have pointed out, the margin of error in surveys is so large that it is statistically impossible to determine who should fill the last two or three spots in the top 10. Effectively, all the polling bottom-dwellers (those who have one percent to four percent) are tied—and a good chunk of the field is now in this category. Just this week, the Ted Cruz campaign, whose candidate is ranked eighth according to the Real Clear Politics average but is in a decent position to make the first debate, questioned Fox News’ debate standards and suggested it select candidates only through polls that interviewed more than 1,000 primary voters and were conducted via telephone.

Cruz has a point: Both the candidates and the voters are not well served by the current jerrybuilt system for debate inclusion. It is going to force some candidates into a frenzy of costly, premature activities, from splashy media events to paid advertisements to controversial pronouncements. For example, a Super PAC supporting Rick Perry is launching a national ad buy, for hundreds of thousands of dollars, as a way to boost Perry’s poll numbers and help get him on the debate stage. These stunts are designed to one-up opponents and add a couple of artificial, temporary percentage points in the polls. Our presidential selection process is insane enough without adding another crazy layer. Did we finally get rid of the meaningless Iowa straw poll only to substitute wild early debate maneuvering?    

And don’t think that many presidential contenders will forgo the numbers-inflating bluster. The stakes are simply too high: If a candidate can’t even make it to the debate stage, why would rational donors and volunteers continue giving money and time to what is apparently a lost cause? It’s hard to look presidential languishing at home while your opponents are discussing foreign policy and social security on national television.