[Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates

[Walter Pituc]

Here is a good piece by the The Nation about the need for truly inclusive
Presidential debates. We tout our country as a democracy yet we exclude many
candidates (who have a mathematical chance of winning based on how ballot
lines they have) from participating in national debates. I especially hate
the truly undemocratic Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) which
decides who gets to debate and who doesn't. It's no surprise that the CPD is
fully funded by corporations and TV executives and is basically controlled
by the two major parties.

-Walter Pituc

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/334812

-----------------------
An Opportunity to Open Presidential Debates

posted by John Nichols on 07/06/2008 @ 3:09pm

The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey of registered voters
nationwide puts Democrat Barack Obama at 46 percent.

Republican John McCain pulls 44 percent.

Is everyone else undecided? No.

A striking six percent of Americans who are likely to vote this fall back an
alternative candidate: Independent Ralph Nader.

Another three percent back Libertarian Bob Barr.

Those are some of the highest percentages in years for independent
or-third-party candidates. And they matter, especially Nader's six percent.

Google and YouTube are organizing a unique presidential forum in New Orleans
for September 18. It is likely to be the first debate (or debate-like
"event") after the major-party nominating conventions are finished.

A candidate polling at 10 percent in national polls -- just four points
ahead of where Nader is now at -- earns a place in the forum.

As Nader's campaign says: "If we get on the Google sponsored debates, we're
convinced Nader/Gonzalez will move toward 20 percent.

"At twenty percent, people see a three way race."

"When people see a three way race, everything is possible."

"And we believe that in this momentous election year, everything is
possible."

Frankly, the 10 percent threshold is too high.

Presidential debates should include all candidates who have qualified for a
sufficient number of ballots lines to accumulate the electoral votes to be
elected president.

It is not all that easy getting on ballots. And those candidates who meet
the standard -- usually no more than two or three beyond the major-party
contenders -- deserve a forum.

Would that put too many candidates on the stage? Don't be silly. Both Obama
and McCain came from crowded fields of Democratic and Republican contenders
who debated frequently -- and functionally -- prior to and during the
primary season.

In other countries, such as France, presidential debates are open not merely
to the two most prominent candidates but to the nominees of all parties that
display a reasonable measure of national appeal. The discussions are
livelier and more issue-focused, and they tend to draw the major-party
candidates out -- providing insights that would otherwise be lost in the
carefully-calculated joint appearances that pass for fall debates in the
U.S.

The corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates -- which was set up by former
chairs of the major parties and their big-media allies to limit access to
the most important forums for presidential nominees -- has made mockery of
the democratic process. And some, admittedly very foolish people, have
actually convinced themselves that one-on-one "debates" organized by party
insiders to fit the schedules of friendly television networks are
meaningful.

The truth is that America needs more and better debates. And Google and
YouTube have taken an important step in opening up the process by
establishing the ten-percent threshold -- a standard that is significantly
easier for an independent or third-party candidate to meet than the CPD's
overly-strict and anti-democratic regulations. (Among rules, the commission
requires a candidate who is not running with the approval of the Democratic
and Republican parties to attain a 15-percent support level across five
national polls.)

Will any independent or third-party candidate reach the ten percent
threshold this year? Nader appears to be best positioned to do so. Despite
scant media attention, he has polled in the four- to six-percent range in
several different polls. Getting up to ten percent will be hard. But as
Obama softens his positions on civil liberties, political reform, trade
policy, presidential accountability and ending the war -- issues on which
Nader has long focused -- his prospects improve.

And one does not have to be a Nader supporter to hope, for the sake of
democracy, that they improve sufficiently to earn him a place in the
Google/YouTube debate and other fall match-ups. And if Nader gets in, why
not Barr and likely Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney?

An Obama-McCain-Nader-Barr-McKinney debate would be less crowded than most
of the Democratic or Republican primary debates, and much less crowded than
the debates in the last French presidential election. But it would still be
sufficiently energetic and ideologically diverse to boost the quality of the
presidential dialogue and give America something closer to a genuinely
democratic discourse.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080708/6240e2c2/attachment.htm