Open the Debates

An anonymous user writes, "It's time to let the George W. Bush and John Kerry campaigns know that the American people want them to participate in real, democratic and engaging presidential debates hosted by the Citizens' Debate Commission." Briefly, Presidential debates have been run by the Commission on Presidential Debates since 1988, and the CPD is run by the Republican and Democratic parties, which has resulted in less informative and less watched debates that exclude third parties and anything else that could hurt the two parties. The CDC, in cooperation with Open Debates, is trying to improve the debates by removing the bipartisan control. "Please do not be shy. Senator Kerry and President Bush are campaigning to be your public servants, and you should not hesitate to remind them of your wishes. Kerry campaign: 202-712-3000; Bush campaign: 703-647-2700. Please call this week! The major party campaigns have assembled their high-profile debate negotiating teams, and they will soon begin debate negotiations. Finally, Open Debates' Executive Director George Farah will be appearing on ABC World News Now tonight (sometime between 1am and 3am EST, for those of you still awake), and on ABC News Now Thursday morning at 6am EST. (They are different programs.)"

Comments

Re:And this is an issue because?

[pudge]

There are so many problems they are difficult to enumerate. You got some of the big ones.

There's also the fact that because the CPD is bipartisan, it is violating federal law, because contributions are campaign donations.

And the fact that Clinton used his power over Dole in 1996 (dangling the carrot named "no Perot") to actually intentionally hold a debate on the same night as a baseball playoff game, to reduce viewership. Stephanopolous even admitted this was the case later on.

The two candidates actively attempt to swindle you. Call them. Tell them you don't want what they're selling. Tell them you want the CDC to take control this year. It's not too late. The only reason they don't change is because we don't ask them to. If you don't call them, they will -- apparently, rightly -- assume that you don't mind that they are staging the entire affair. The affair should be out of their hands.

Re:And this is an issue because?

[pudge]

The 5% bar is hardly onerous or unreasonable. Anderson and Ross Perot both managed to qualify and were present in the debates.

It's not 5%, it is 15%! Which would exclude Perot in both 92 and 96, and Anderson. Anderson is on the board of the CDC, FWIW.

It also, if applied at the state level, would have prevented Jesse Ventura from becoming governor, as he would not have been included in the debates (pre-debates he was 10%).

And it also means your tax dollars go to candidates (which IS a 5% barrier) whom you're not allowed to hear in the debates.

What is a much bigger issue is who gets to choose the questions. In a true debate the candidates would face off against each other. Instead the US media insists that it get to ask the questions. It would make much more sense to have the candidates question each other.

There is no "true debate," but that said, direct questioning of candidates to each other is one thing many people want. But the candidates negotiate that away, under the CPD. We would have it if the CPD weren't in control. But direct questioning makes candidates look bad, so the CPD and the candidates don't want it.

Re:And this is an issue because?

[St. Arbirix]

If the minor party candidates want to have a debate then let them. I am sure that CSPAN will cover it and anyone who is interested will watch. But just because Ralph Nader wants to talk to us does not mean that people are interested in listening

Nader is debating Badnarik. All others are invited. C-SPAN won't be covering it.

There have been serious third party candidates in the debates. The 5% bar is hardly onerous or unreasonable. Anderson and Ross Perot both managed to qualify and were present in the debates.

The bar is actually 15% which is higher than the 10% required to get on a state's ballot. There wasn't a bar until the League of Women Voters got royally ticked at the CPD and quit hosting their own debates.

When Perot ran in 1992 his May polls showed him beating both Clinton and Bush. Then he dropped out of the race and Clinton's points rose 14 percent while Bush's rose only 3. When Perot re-entered the race he only got 10% on the polls. The Bush supporters saw that Perot's followers had all migrated over to Clinton so they were happy to have him back in the race. The *only* (fact) reason Perot was in the debates at all was because the Republican party needed someone to take votes away from Clinton. He was only allowed to debate on the first of the three debates though. In 1996 Gore didn't have a strong enough position to warrant pulling another Perot so Perot wasn't allowed.

What is a much bigger issue is who gets to choose the questions. In a true debate the candidates would face off against each other. Instead the US media insists that it get to ask the questions. It would make much more sense to have the candidates question each other.

The U.S. media doesn't have any say in the questions. The questions are chosen by a panel of Republican and Democratic party members and are pre-released to the candidates so they can have time to formulate their answers. The U.S. media might be the reason there actually isn't any debating though; debating takes more time than simply issuing statements so it's hard to judge time slots. Also, those audience questions were submitted for approval beforehand, given to the candidates beforehand, and are read from a card live.

--Matthew

Re:And this is an issue because?

[KilobyteKnight]

Let's point out a few more facts. You don't need 50% to win. You need 50% of the populace who bothers to vote, which is about 40-60% of the populace. So let's be charitable and say you need about 30% to win; IN A TWO PARTY ELECTION.

Actually, in the US system, you need less than that. All you need is slightly more than 50% of voters (40-60% of people) in enough states to win the electorial college. That's to win it outright. A special case arises if no one wins an outright majority of the electorial college.

Here is a link to a good summary of the implications. According to his calculations you can win with less than 23% of the popular vote. And that's votes cast. Precent of population is obviously less. Let's say a the unlikely occurs and there is very low voter turn out in enough states to win, and very high turn out in the other states. This number could theoretically get below 10% of the popular vote (and 4% to 6% of the population) to outright win the election - but it would be highly unlikely.