Presidential Debates: Third Parties Silenced

I feel it is very important to voice an issue that never sees the light of day in any major media publication. That issue is the presidential debates. 66 million people tuned into the 2nd presidential debate last fall. The League of Women Voters served as a genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor from 1976 until 1988, ensuring the inclusion of popular independent candidates and prohibiting major party campaigns from manipulating debate formats.

On October 23, 1988 the League of Women Voters submitted a press release. The opening sentence: “The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.” The same year, the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee (Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk). Any proponent of a just democracy should be questioning the CPD. The voice of any third party or independent voice has been completely silenced on a stage before 25-60 million potential voters, each debate. Since the two main parties seized control of the presidential debates, funding has been primarily sourced to multinational corporations with regulatory interests.

We are continually cheapening our democracy by silencing conservative and progressive voices alike, leaving voices of dissent to the two major parties in the dark. Historically, third parties have much precedence in the advancement of society in America, by introducing popular issues that were eventually co-opted by major parties. Such as: The abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, child labor laws, public schools, direct election of senators, paid vacation, unemployment compensation, social security, and the formation of labor unions.

Excluded voices can’t break the two party gridlock. Since 2000, the CPD has required that candidates reach 15 percent in national polls to participate in the presidential debates. This criterion is the greatest obstacle to democratic presidential debates. The Seattle Times editorialized, “The 15 percent threshold suits the two parties. It unduly restricts the American people.” 76 percent of registered voters supported Ross Perot’s inclusion in the 1996 debates, and 64 percent wanted Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan included in the 2000 presidential debates. They were excluded from the debates.

Six weeks before the 1998 gubernatorial election in Minnesota, The Star Tribune pegged Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura at 10 percent in the polls. Three debates later, on October 20, he was at 21 percent. Remarkably, Ventura’s cash-strapped campaign had not yet aired a single television advertisement. On Election Day, Ventura captured 37 percent of the vote and became the governor of Minnesota. Governor Ventura explained his astounding victory, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”

We must reform the debates as a catalyst towards a just democracy, which will free the voices of all political viewpoints. The logjam stifling all political issues is the presidential debates.“We’re not going to apologize for trying to influence political elections,” said Fahrenkopf.

“These are the guys,” author George Farah points out, “deciding who gets to participate in the most important political forums in the United States of America.”

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)