10 Things To Know About The Upcoming Debates

jSpectre writes "Connie Rice writes an interesting article about the 'Presidential Debates' found on NPR's web site. Did you know it's illegal for the candidates to debate anywhere other than CPD ('Cloaking-device for Party Deception') officially santioned debates? Read on for her 'Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.'" Read more CPD criticism at Open Debates.

Comments

Reform is necessary...

[cephyn]

...but its too bad that the only people willing to reform are locked out of the system by those who are terrified of losing their monopoly on the system. And those who oppose reform are the ones who would have to create reform.

IRV voting. Open Debates. Truly non-partisan moderators. Proper polling, or none at all. Safe, secure, open-to-the public electronic voting. Are all these things really too much to ask? Are all these things really IMPOSSIBLE to discuss?

I really hope that in 20 years when my generation is coming up through the ranks, when the geek inherit the earth (come on guys, get some people skills! Think of the people!), they remember the early 21st Century fiascos.

Re:Reform is necessary...

[aelbric]

Not that I like this system, but I have a question. What is to keep the independent candidates from buying prime-time TV air time and doing a real debate for the public. Wouldn't the Dems and Repubs almost be required to respond?

IMHO, if the deck is stacked against you, don't play the game.

It isn't just national debates

[ElForesto]

The local PBS affiliate, KLVX, has been excluding 3rd-party candidates from all of their televised debates. They made up some rule that you have to pull at least 5% in the last election for that same office. In other words... you have to run for the same office over and over before they'll let you in.

In 2002, I was out with a group of people from my party picketing the station. We challenged the candidates to refuse to go on unless they had our candidate on as well. They, naturally, politely declined. We then showed up to protest a 2nd non-televised debate, one that had a lot of newspaper reporters around. They let him in after 10 minutes. He ended up being the only candidate that answered questions instead of talking about how tough he is. (We created the David Roger Drinking Game based on this debate.)

No matter where you go, the monopoly is enforced.

Re:It isn't just national debates

[slothman32]

Most people wouldn't think totalitarianism would apply to the US. But in reality it does. It's not just PBS or where not but actually laws like equal funds that require 5%. Whether it is 1 party or 2 that the laws create it still isn't very democratic. Whether it actually illegalities third parties or just makes them unable to get elected doesn't really matter either. Laws prevent them from winning and force only the 2 parties to get power. Remember a duopoly is a monopoly too. P.S. When I spell-checked it I spelled totalitarianism correctly but actually wrong. I am weird.

Just saw something simliar on MeFi

[xenocide2]

A more detailed analysis that backs many of the points made in the NPR article.

The worst part of this is that it puts incumbants and poll leaders in a great position. The underdog wants the chance for the other guy to screw up. The leader of course doesn't want this to happen, but doesn't want to look afraid to debate.

This year it puts Kerry in a tough spot. He needs the media exposure as much as he needs the President to screw up. The Bush campaign could have easily walked away from it without serious reprecussion. Instead they used Kerry's needs to sanitize the affair. Kerry gets a gamble made worse by the negotiations, and America gets another boring infomercial where two guys stand up and declare how awesome it is to be them, and how awesome America will be if you BUY NOW!

Of course, if this is treated in any way like the Conventions, media coverage will be irrelevant. Most of the cable news channels featured Chris Matthews or Ron Reagan or Larry King or Bill O'Reilly talking over the majority of the convention. They're already fighting over how to present the debates; the networks want cut-aways that show one guy talking and the other listening.

Rice's Secret # 9, need some help with this one

[scupper]

Quoted from Connie Rice piece on NPR:

(9.) "The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986." "The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot , and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986 ."

Without googling into this, it initially struck me that Perot was mentioned in a timeline ending in a debates "takeover" in 1986 by the cpd, 4-5 years before Perot launched his presidential campaign, so I thought.

I'm not debating whether there was a "takeover" of the LWV moderated debates, just wondering if anyone knows what Ross Perot's role was in any LWV moderated debates prior to 1986, as it seems to me that Rice is trying to state that, based on her info, the LWV lost the presidential debates, in part, due to the admission of Ross Perot into the debates. The CPD, not the LWV, admitted Perot to the 1992 debates, and according to Rice's own timeline, CPD was in charge then.

On the surface, it appears to be a simple error, an oversight of copy and pasting, and one that makes me question the rest of "Secret # 9" accuracy and Rice's sincerity and attention to detail about the facts.