Open The Debates

July 22 2004
Counterbias.com
Jason Clendenen

Once again the presidential election looms on the horizon, and the two major-party candidates are preparing their strategies and their sound-bytes to send across televisions nationwide.  This commercial-intensive format gives little room for explaining issues or understanding the subtle differences between the candidates, instead encouraging the mindless repetition of rhetoric promising to "leave no child behind" or to "protect the environment."  So where do concerned citizens turn for explanations of how exactly no child will be left behind by taking mindless exams or how the environment will be protected without increasing fuel-efficiency?  Unfortunately not the presidential debates.

        The last presidential debate that wasn't painfully dull was in 1992 when Perot snuck onstage with Clinton and Bush Sr.; his presence invigorated the event by raising important questions and issues, swelling the number of viewers to more than 90 million (Gore and Bush Jr. had no more than 60 million in 2000).  Since 1992, however, even Perot has been shut out of the debates, leaving audiences asleep as candidates repeat campaign rhetoric and refuse to explain anything in a thoughtful manner.

        Why is it that this non-debate format (how can we call it a debate when the candidates don't even ask each other direct questions?) is the best that our democracy has to offer?  The answer is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which is a private company run by loyal Democrats and Republicans (there is one independent to be the token minority), which has a monopoly on the event.  The board of directors works hard to ensure that no third-party candidates are allowed to rock the boat as Perot did in 1992, using a series of qualification hurdles, many of which are subjective, impossible for non-major-party candidates to cross while unconditionally inviting Democrats and Republicans.

        One such hurdle is requiring that third-party candidates register at least 15% in 5 polls conducted by the major TV networks (who also support the CPD).  This number is essentially impossible for non-traditional candidates to obtain because of a lack of media coverage, which is also caused by low poll numbers in a vicious Catch-22 that works to exclude any competition to the established parties.  A telling example of this effect is that Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992 after the debates while only polling 7% beforehand; the media coverage gave him 12 points.  I should also note that Sec. of State Powell just commented that the elections in Russia were unfair because only Putin got much media coverage; he should have looked at our own system first.

        The point of all of this is to bring to your attention a deficiency in the system that works to uphold mediocrity in our political process.  Placing party loyalties aside for the moment, allowing third-party candidates with different viewpoints to participate in the debates will enrich the event by bringing forward topics and questions that special-interest-supported major candidates fear to discuss.  Therefore, I encourage everyone to contact the CPD, their legislative representatives, the political parties, and the major networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and FOX) to support initiatives to change the entrance rules to the presidential debates or to host their own open debates.  These initiatives include lowering the poll requirements to 5%, or having a preliminary debate with all candidates on the ballot in enough states to conceivably win an electoral majority (itself a very difficult process requiring thousands of signatures in multiple states) before continuing with the standard debates including all candidates polling 10% or so; the media coverage from the preliminary debate would boost the polls for interesting non-traditional candidates.

             These initiatives and others would work to level the playing field and allow some new competition in a market too-long dominated by only two options.  It would invigorate the debates and the political process in general, helping to encourage the involvement of the majority of the population who does not vote, often for a lack of options.  This is in turn good for democracy and our nations politics.  So open the debates and let the game begin, this time allowing fair competition in the true spirit of democracy.

Jason Clendenen is a PCV (Peace Corps Volunteer) serving in East Province, Cameroon.