 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relevant Issues |
|
The Bias of the Commission on Presidential Debates |
Relevant IssuesThe Bias of the Commission on Presidential Debates“Major questions remain regarding the equal time requirements for television coverage of party versus independent or third-party candidates. Yet in the commission’s judgment, the importance of television forums argues for erring on the side of favoring the [Democrat & Republican] party nominating processes rather than the rights of other candidates. This judgment, however, may need to be reviewed during each presidential election, depending on circumstances at the time.” The 2004 presidential election is the ideal time for the American public to review this judgment and demand that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) invite third party candidates to participate in the televised debates. After the exclusionary practices of the CPD in the 1996 and 2000 elections and the unjust subjective criteria used to exclude all political challengers, it is apparent that this governing body is more dedicated to protecting the status quo power of the Republican and Democratic nominees than in promoting an educational forum for voters. More Americans identify themselves as Independents (35%) than as either Republicans (32%) or Democrats (31%) according to a poll conducted by CNN, USA Today, and Gallup. Yet these 72 million Americans are routinely denied access to the ideas of candidates that might represent their political views. The mounting alienation of voters from the political process in the United States cannot be overcome when debate among all viable candidates is subverted. To understand the inherent bias of the CPD one need look no further than the final report of the Commission on National Elections cited above. The genesis for the CPD is found within this report and its language guarantees the ultimate protection of the major two party candidates. The Commission on National Elections urges “the [major two] parties to assume responsibility for sponsoring and otherwise ensuring that presidential candidate joint appearances are made a permanent and integral part of the presidential election process.” To that end, the report encourages the two parties to establish some entity, such as a “joint committee”, to sponsor the presidential debates. Their recommendation led to the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates, displaying the League of Women Voters as the host organization for the debates. The Commission is headed by the former chairs of the Republican and Democratic National Parties. The CPD claims it is a nonpartisan entity with a mission “to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between the leading candidates for offices of the President and Vice President of the United States.” The CPD explains that the Federal Election Commission, its governing authority, requires it to extend candidate invitations to the debates based on the application of “pre-established, objective” criteria. Defining “Objective” CriteriaApparently the requirement that the CPD actual use “objective” criteria to determine candidates eligibility is optional. In 1996, an advisory committee to the Commission claimed that Ross Perot should be excluded from the debates because he had “no realistic chance of winning,” This is hardly a measurable criteria. Reasonable and objective criterion can be found in the requirements of ballot access in enough states to support a mathematical chance of winning 270 votes in the Electoral College and proof of federal election funding. Allowing a handful of journalists and political scientists to declare that a third party candidate does not have a realistic chance of winning is an opinion at best. The evidence of such a claim cannot be proven before an election. However in 1996, the CPD used the opinions of a select few to exclude both Ross Perot and The Natural Law Party candidate Dr. John Hagelin from the debates. These opinions superseded the fact that both candidates had met all the other requirements for participation. Although Perot and Hagelin filed a joint lawsuit against the CPD and the Federal Election Commission, the judge ruled that the FEC had 120 days to rule on the complaint before the courts could intervene. The FEC chose to delay its ruling until after the election. Unfortunately for the American people, justice delayed is justice denied. The FEC Commissioners owe their appointed positions to the major two parties and are dependent on their good will. This process allows the Republicans and Democrats to protect their own interests while eliminating any independent authority that might rule in favor of third party candidates. “Seventy-six percentage of the American public, according to a Lou Harris poll, wanted Ross Perot in the [1996] debates so that the candidates would talk about something. But this Commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, took the wasted vote strategy to a higher level and declared Ross Perot has no realistic chance of winning.. Now how do you overcome, not the wasted vote strategy, but the government saying, ‘this candidate has no realistic chance of winning.’” In the 2000 election, the CPD replaced the “realistic chance of winning” argument with a criteria to indicate electoral support. Candidates are now required to demonstrate “a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five national public opinion polling organizations.” It is a classic Catch-22 that all five polls are commissioned by major print and television media that require third party candidates to make a showing in the polls before they will cover their campaigns. Yet to make an impact with voters, candidates need media coverage. How can voters indict support for third party candidates when there is almost no information given about them or their platforms other than their “spoiler” role in the election? Instead of asking voters whether or not they would vote for a third party candidate, they should be asked whether or not they favor the participation of other candidates in the debates. The CPD avoids this polling question because voters consistently indict that they want alternative political voices in the national debates. This was true in last two presidential elections. In an August 2000 Fox survey, 64% of those polled wanted a four-way debate that included Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan. The CPD prefers to exclude third party candidates because when they get equal treatment voters respond on Election Day. Jesse Ventura went from less than 10% in the polls to the Governor’s Mansion because Minnesota voters heard his views during the televised debates and were afforded same day voter registration. The same was true of Ross Perot whose polling numbers prior to the 1992 presidential debates were between 5%-7% because he had dropped out of the race that summer before committing to run. His independent candidacy received a significant boost because of his lively debate appearances and he went on to capture 19% of the popular vote. It was the best showing of a third party presidential candidate since Teddy Roosevelt ran under the Bull Moose Party. Given the already cumbersome ballot access requirements, the fact that minority parties have gathered millions of voter signatures and are on the ballot is in itself evidence of electoral support. Federal election funds are another indicator of electoral support because it is based on prior popular vote percentages of at least 5%. If a party and its candidate are eligible for taxpayer money, it would seem only logical that the requirement for demonstrating electoral support in a random poll sample should also be 5%, and not 15%. Demanding Fair and Open DebatesWith more than 200 candidates announcing their presidential campaigns, clearly some criteria is needed to determine who should rightfully participate in the debates. However, the Commission on Presidential Debates has gone beyond what is reasonable and objective in determining eligibility. If the true mission of the CPD is to hold debates that benefit American voters, then it must eliminate the illegal and subjective criteria systematically used to exclude all other candidates. If only the CPD were as interested in the ratings. Sixty-six million Americans tuned in during the 1992 debates, but viewership dropped by 38% when only the Republican and Democratic candidates were invited to participate in 1996. In 2000, NBC decided a baseball game was of more interests to its viewers than one of the three debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Historically, third party candidates put important
issues on the table that are typically ignored by the major two
parties and those issues draw in millions of nonvoters who do not
feel that their concerns are being addressed by the ruling parties.
We have the right to hear these alternative voices. The hierarchy
of the Commission on Presidential Debates will continue to favor
the major two parties unless the emerging Independent plurality
demands change. Americans are entitled to hear fresh ideas and innovative
approaches to the problems plaguing our nation especially when these
problems linger from election to election. The Democrats and Republicans
have repeatedly demonstrated that they are more beholden to special
interest money than to the will of the people. We must demand our
right to know who these alternative candidates are and what visions
they hold for our future. Anything else hinders are ability to make
informed choices on Election Day about the direction we want our
country to take |
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Flirting with Power, LLC |
