[Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates

Tue Jul 8 13:08:55 CDT 2008

No, I think you are mistaken Jenifer. I will not argue about the spoiler
argument here because I know people have different political persuasions and
different takes on it on the peace list and I wouldn't want to devolve this
into mere partisan bickering, but what I will argue for right here is the
desperate need for equal access to debates to non-major party/Indy
presidential candidates. If we as a nation truly believe in equality under
the law, then we would have fairer ballot access laws, open and inclusive
debates, publicly funded campaigns, and equal media coverage.

>From a purely civil libertarian perspective, if you are a citizen of the
United States you should get a fair shake at being able to run for office
and for equal treatment under the law. In Europe and elsewhere, there is
more political diversity and more transparent and equal treatment (relative
to us at least) of more marginal voices in society because the laws there
allow for it.

-Walter

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> So what y're saying is that spoiler Nader (who just couldn't bring himself
> to back McKinney) might throw the election to McCain? That's the kind of
> deja vu that would end the world as we've come to know it (think: Supreme
> Court nominees).
>
>  --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/8/08, Walter Pituc <wpituc2 at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> From: Walter Pituc <wpituc2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
> To: "Prairie Greens of East Central Illinois" <
> prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net>, "Peace-discuss List" <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 11:57 AM
>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080708/3ddb7f35/attachment.htm