 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relevant Issues |
|
The Bias of the Commission on Presidential Debates |
Relevant IssuesIf Competition is Good for the Economy, Imagine What It Can Do for Politics"There's a unity among these people [who believe] that American politics needs an outside force to give it a kick." Whatever your opinion of Ross Perot, it was his vocal objections that brought the national deficient and special interest money controlling public policy to our attention. Two issues mostly ignore by the Republicans and Democrats because they did not benefit their re-election campaigns. When voters demanded that these issues be addressed by supporting Perot's candidacy for president, the major two parties took note and entered into the dialogue. Unfortunately many of America's most pressing problems linger from election to election because the political process does not foster competition or honest communication about the actual state of our union. Instead we have a political process that is controlled by the major two parties to their benefit and that means they get to decide who is on the ballot in elections, what issues are addressed, and who can debate these issues. In Robert Roth's book, A Reason to Vote, he details the November 7, 1996 testimonial of John Moore, The Natural Law Party's director of ballot and media access, before the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). An outgrowth of the 1970s Helsinki Accords, OSCE works to promote human rights as well as fair and open elections around the world. Moore addressed delegates from fifty-five nations regarding U.S. campaign and election laws that clearly violate the Copenhagen Accords, a document that the United States signed agreeing to "respect the right of individuals, and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law." Offering thirty pages of evidence by third parties of the discriminatory campaign and elections laws of the United States, Moore testifies. "The United States enforces fair elections on all the other countries, but at home it has the most discriminatory election practices of any democracy. The U.S. has two sets of rules: one, fair and equal opportunity for Republicans and Democrats, with automatic access to the ballot, the media, and the debates. And two, rules that present huge obstacles to prevent new parties and independent candidates from participating in the election process. This is in complete violation of the very accords that the United States is forcing on the rest of the world." These discriminatory practices include ballot access barriers in the form of 50 different state petition processes, an expensive and time-consuming requirement that eliminates most third party candidates. The incumbent Republicans and Democrats of each state then get to decide whether or not the petition signatures are valid. They can bar challengers by simply declaring their petition efforts are inaccurate. The only recourse is for third parties to file lawsuits against any state that denies them legitimate access. This adds another burden to third parties with limited resources. Many of the major third parties prevail and go on to demonstrate voter support at the polls thereby earning federal election funds. But despite meeting these objective measurements of voter support , third party presidential candidates are then given an additional burden. They are required to meet the subjective criteria, as put forth by the Commission on Presidential Debates, in order to participate in the televised debates. In 1996 two third party candidates, despite meeting all of the objective requirements, were excluded by the Commission on the grounds that they did not have a "realistic chance of winning." This is not an objective criteria but rather an opinion that cannot be validated prior to any election. In 2000, the Commission announced that all candidates must demonstrate voter support of at least 15% in five major polls to be included in the debates. This percentage is noticeably higher than the 5% of the popular vote required to earn matching federal campaign funds. If the Commission places such value on voter polls, why does it ignore the data showing that Americans want the debates opened up to third party candidates who meet the objective requirements? Voters deserve to hear alternative ideas and the debates are a highly visible format where candidates can express themselves without the selective editing and commentary so prevalent in media coverage today. In 1992, Ross Perot was polling around 7% prior to the debates. Many credit his debate performances that year for helping him win 19% of the vote on Election Day. Unfortunately, the Commission on Presidential Debates is run by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties and they have little incentive to open up the debates to their political competition. American voters must demand that these discriminatory election practices ended immediately. We must educate ourselves on the benefits reaped from protecting and demanding equal rights for third parties in the political process. The Historic Benefit of Third Parties in AmericaAccording to Richard Winger, an expert on ballot access, in The Importance of Ballot Access, "Using the criteria of high voter turnout, the absence of gridlock, and exchange of power between the two major parties, we can see that our two-party system was healthy in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890sÉ(when) our political system contained many vigorous and powerful third parties." Historically third parties have ensured the health
of the two-party system by forcing the major parties to adopt progressive
ideas and reform legislation that otherwise would have been ignored.
Almost 90% of our nation's most significant reforms, ideas that
have shaped our country, were brought forth by third parties including
the abolition of slavery, the right to vote for women, and child
labor laws. Many third parties focus exclusively on a common set
of ideas, instead of developing a more comprehensive platform, to
ensure that they enter the national debate. The key tenets of the
Progressive movement during the late 1800s called for extensive
government antitrust laws and labor reforms such as an eight hour
work day. An outgrowth of the progressive movement was the popularly
known Bull Moose Party of Theodore Roosevelt, who had grown unhappy
with his Republican successor William Howard Taft. Roosevelt received
27.4% of the popular vote as its 1912 presidential candidate, the
best showing of any third party candidate in American history. Although
Roosevelt did not win, his popularity among voters forced the major
two parties to adopt the significant reforms that he championed.
|
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Flirting with Power, LLC |
