Weather
Do the Debates Unfairly Shut Out Third Parties?The presidential and vice presidential debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit corporation that mandates that a candidate have at least 15 percent support in national polls to participate. Since the CPD took over running the debates in 1988, only once has a third party candidate been allowed to participate: In 1992, when Ross Perot joined Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on the debate stage. The dominance of the two major parties at the debates has critics charging that the system is effectively rigged to shut out other voices. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee for president and former New Mexico governor, has sued on anti-trust grounds to be included this year. The CPD, he said in an interview, is designed "to protect the interests of Republicans and Democrats." George Farah, the author of "No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates" and the executive director of Open Debates, calls the 15 percent criteria "absurdly high," noting that candidates who reach five percent support qualify for public funding if they reached five percent support in past elections. "Third parties have played critical issues in raising issues that are critical to the conversation in this country," he said, pointing to the abolition of slavery and the creation of Social Security and public schools. "When you exclude them from the debate, you have a sort of ideological containment." A little history: The first televised presidential debates, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, came in 1960. They were sponsored by the major networks, including CBS News. Presidential debates were next held in 1976, with the League of Women Voters in charge; they sponsored the next two sets of debates as well, before the CPD took over in 1988. Critics of the current system point to the League of Women Voters as an ideal debate moderator, arguing that it was more willing than the CPD to stand up to the parties. In 1980, Jimmy Carter strongly opposed the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson, who had polled as high as 26 percent, in the debates. (Anderson would ultimately finish with less than 7 percent of the vote.) The League decided to include Anderson anyway, prompting Carter to drop out of the debates and leaving Anderson alone to debate Ronald Reagan. In 1984, the League held a press conference lambasting Reagan and Walter Mondale for rejecting dozens of potential debate moderators. In an interview, Anderson said the debates are now "pretty well locked into the maintenance of a two-party system." "Very clearly, the present system is wrong in my humble judgment in that it excludes the possibility that there could rise up a reasonable and probably candidate from someone other than one of the major parties," he said. In addition to meeting the 15 percent threshold "as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations," the CPD mandates that candidates be Constitutionally eligible to be president and be on the ballot in enough states that it is mathematically possible to win the presidency. Alan Schroeder, a professor at Northeastern University and an expert on presidential debates, says the 15 percent threshold is reasonable. |
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled.
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
|
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .
Guest said on Monday, Oct 15 at 11:31 AM
I think the debates problem is trying to cover everything in one debate. They should have separated the topics for each debate. ie. one debate for foreign policy, domestic issues and so on. That way each candidate has more time and can go into more detail without having to worry about switching topics. That's my two cents for the day.
104008876WhiteTrashInWasilla said on Monday, Oct 15 at 11:50 AM
I watched the "Expand The Debate" on Democracy now. It was very illuminating to hear Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson answer the same questions, Obama and Romney answered. For all their posturing, I do not see much difference between the two major parties. Let's face it neither Obama or Romney are going to shake the bush much, when they have to "dance with them what brought em". If we are ever to have a functioning democracy we must break the strangle hold of the two party system. If people like Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson's voice's are never heard, then how can people consider alternatives? The CPD, was created to maintain the status quo, and the sooner we demolish it the better. I like the idea of more debates with more candidates early on, then whittling the number down, as the election draws nearer. In closing, this year's election is a total farce. Never was never even a mention of a challenge to Obama, even though he is not exactly popular, not to mention Romney.
104010545Arcticmoon said on Monday, Oct 15 at 12:54 PM
Yes they do unfairly shut out the third party candidates. I also watched the third party candidates in real time on Democracy Now on FSTV. The major parties don't want the vote split. It was reported on Thom Hartman that when you count the people who are voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate, that Mitt Romney may actually be a half point behind Obama. Unfortunately, the Republicans have been very successful at stealing our elections. An article on In These Times said that the Koch brothers sent a letter to 45,000 Georgia Pacific employees warning of consequences if they voted for Obama, Murray Energy, SG software and Westgate resorts have done the same thing. When you add this to all of the voter suppression around the country. I am afraid that the Republicans will steal the election even with the Libertarian Candidate to split the vote. There is also the Justice Candidate and the Green party candidate which will divide the vote for Obama.
104016231Mark o said on Monday, Oct 15 at 7:07 PM
Should'nt the questions come from random audience members? These jokers have to give up some control, and besides, what it would be laughable to watch them stumble. These are not leaders but oligarach's who desire power.
104039746Add a comment
Most Popular