It's been awhile since I've started any debates, so forgive me if I'm a bit rusty...

I was reading up on the qualifications for eligibility in the 2004 presidential debates. What I found doesn't seem right and of course the question arose, "What would ADers think of this?" - and then this thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The debates are run by The Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") Their mission:

Note the passive voice in the first clause of the first sentence, 'was established in 1987 to ensure...' I'm trying to figure out if their failure to explain who was behind their establishment was intentional or just poor writing. The reason I ask is because this 1987 CPD Press Release (.pdf) clearly states that it was a joint effort of the Republican and Democratic National Committees behind the establishment of the CPD.

This fact led me back to my original interest - the criteria to participate in the 2004 presidential debates. According to the CPD:

Questions to Debate:

Are the CPD's qualifications to debate fair and equitable to all legitimate presidential candidates? (If not, what changes would you suggest?)

Is it fair to the American public that the debates are maintained by the CPD, a group founded by the two largest political parties?

Are the CPD's qualifications to debate fair and equitable to all legitimate presidential candidates? (If not, what changes would you suggest?)
In a vacuum it would seem to be lacking equity given the exclusionary nature of what's taking place. A good example was the potential exclusion of Ross Perot from some of the presidential debates in 1996. While he met the ballot criteria, there was some debate (pardon the pun) over whether he met the 15% rule. Nader suffered even more in that regard in 2000.

Remove the vacuum and the factor of time and efficacy come into play. The election happens in a relatively short period of time following the conventions. At that point, unless a 3rd party candidate can prove they have a shot at at least competing in the election, is there value in their contribution in the debate? That's a tough call. Was anything gained by letting Perot's "let me finish" tirades? Would we have gained much from Nader being able to participate in the 2000 debates? I ask these questions honestly as I'm not entirely sure of the answer myself. From the standpoint of democratic principles the answer is probably a resounding yes. From a practical perspective, maybe not so much.

The challenge of change in this scenario is maximizing access while balancing a desire to obtain meaningful debate out of this process. I don't know that loosening the standards would improve legitimate access for 3rd parties in this regard.

Is it fair to the American public that the debates are maintained by the CPD, a group founded by the two largest political parties?
Probably not, but I think the standards for inclusion in the debates are marginally equitable. I do find it frustrating that our choices and ability to review candidates are extremely limited by the time September rolls around, but the CPD is more a reflection of the symptoms of the ills of the two-party system in that regard.

Doc

The third qualification is one which is the one which is discriminatory against those other than the two major parties. We have become a nation who voters vote by the polls instead of vote by the issues. People do not think for themselves. All candidates who fit the first two criteria should be presented at the debates. The purpose of the debates should be to discuss policy differences so that the voters can make an informed decision as to whom to support. They should not be a beauty contest predetermined by polls.

The only power the CPD has is that given to them by the television networks. The CPD has been a poor group to be in charge of organizing the debates in the past and the roots of its origins does explain why. The television networks should be giving air time to a different debate organization without the current problem.

The first two criteria are valid, the second one is less than what I would require. that being, a candidate must be on the ballot in all fifty states, so I have to give them credit for that. Item #3 is more problematic. It could be asserted that exposure in the debates is what leads to high polling numbers. A lot of times, what passes for high polling numbers has to do with media hype only(i.e.-Dean on the cover of every newspaper and magazine across the country) but then that changes when the candidate(s) open their mouth(s) Item #3 needs to be done away with.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your responses. I did my best to avoid bias when I opened this thread. I guess now is good to assert an actual opinion.

I agree with Gray Seal & Nebraska29 that the qualification of sufficient polling data is a problem. There is ample evidence that polls are not always right, and even when they are right, they are constantly in flux.

Examples of the vacillating and sometimes inaccurate polls and subsequent explanations for this abound.





Another problem with relying on polling indicators as a debate eligibility requirement is the fact that many agencies leave off third party candidates when conducting their polls.

CNN/USAToday/Gallup did this in this 1996 Election Poll

Currently, two of the major polling companies are failing to include some third parties in their polling questions also.

Zogby’s 2004 Presidential Election Battleground States Tracking Poll currently asks voters:


CNN/USAToday/Gallup are also guilty of this as evidenced by their recent poll questions:

I am baffled as to why the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik was left off. He is on the ballot in 49 states and the official candidate of the Libertarian party. How is he ever to register his 15% if he is not even listed on these polls by name?

With all due respect to Nader, I am not sure why these major polling companies are including him and not Badnarik. If these major polling companies are going to be allowed to directly influence our presidential elections, they need to start acting more responsibly with their poll questions.

To further evidence the Commission on Presidential Debates’ bias toward the two party-only debates, we can look to the candidates themselves. Both Bush and Kerry have stated that they and the American public do not care about the polls.






Here we have evidence that the major political candidates and the American public do not care about polls – why should the CPD?
If the CPD is truly interested in providing “the best possible information to viewers and listeners” then they ought to start acting like it. As it stands now they appear to only be a cog in the wheel of the two-party machine.

The polling portion of the eligibility requirements needs to be abolished. I agree with Nebraska29 that the requirement of being on the ballot in all 50 states would make a good addition. The balloting process is expensive, confusing and arduous. If a candidate can get past all 50 checkpoints on their way to the presidency, the CPD should be willing to accept them into the debates.

To be more fair, since some of the 50 states like to create laws highly biased to maintaining the status quo, I'd recommend being on the ballot in enough states to actually win sufficient electoral college votes to be elected.

Are the CPD's qualifications to debate fair and equitable to all legitimate presidential candidates? (If not, what changes would you suggest?)

Absolutely not. The polling requirement is ludicrous; I cannot see any other reason for this requirement than to severely limit the debate field to the two major parties. As Jaime has mentioned, the polls vary and often do not include third-party candidates. This seems like an arbitrary and very exclusionary limit-- of course, I think that was the original idea behind it. I agree that there must be some limitation on the debate entries, otherwise there would be fifty people debating!

The first two seem reasonable; obviously we have to observe the Constitutional guidelines for candidates. The second makes sense: Why should anyone be debating if they have no viability as a candidate?

I don't agree with the notion that they must have approval in all fifty states, however. Jaime mentioned that the process is often "expensive, confusing, and arduous". Amf noted that some states might have a tendency to create laws to stop third parties. That seems to me to be too limiting. I think it's reasonable to say that they have to at least have some viability; it would considerably trim the number of debate entries.



Well, I think that there are many third-party candidates with good ideas to bring to the table that would simply be overlooked otherwise. They probably don't have a genuine shot at the Presidency, but they do have some good ideas that the major candidates should have to hear and respond to.

Is it fair to the American public that the debates are maintained by the CPD, a group founded by the two largest political parties?

It's fair if they don't create capricious policies such as the poll percentage requirement that show they only care about maintaining their hold on power. However, the CPD's "nonpartisan" requirement number three blatantly favors the two major parties.

I think I'm going to change my position about the poll clause being fair (Jaime persuaded me ). As many have pointed out, polls are not always accurate (just ask Dewey ). I think if the candidate is capable of getting on the ballot (ie, like the Libertarian candidate) in at least 3/4th of the states, they should be permitted to participate. Debates are a legitimate way of campaigning and to exclude ballot enabled candidates would be unduly restrictive.

Doc

1) No, bring back the League of Women Voters to handle the debates.




2) No, the CPD and the 2 political parties are marinated in corporate money. Just ask Ralph Nader how fair the current system is. He was barred from even entering the building.

Are the CPD's qualifications to debate fair and equitable to all legitimate presidential candidates? (If not, what changes would you suggest?)

Is it fair to the American public that the debates are maintained by the CPD, a group founded by the two largest political parties?

No. And even more so, they're unfair to the American voters. It's unfair to ask in a poll, "Who are you going to vote for?" and then use that as criteria for who will be in the debates. Perot was showing at 7% before the '92 debates 19% after

The CPD, as you point out, is headed by the former head of the Republican and Democratic Parties. In fact it receives its sponsorship money under the auspices that it's non-partisan, which of course it's not

In my personal opinion, without Ralph Nader’s inclusion in the debates, the critical issues facing our country—including the war in Iraq—will not be fully discussed. The debates will just be a boring, scripted campaign ad for two candidates that offer little hope for our future. A new campaign—www.letnaderdebate.org—has formed to insist that Nader be allowed to debate. Democrats, Republicans and Independents who favor democracy over partisanship are signing an open letter to President Bush asking him to use his political clout to ensure that Nader is included. I hope everyone on this board will sign the letter!

Gwen

Instead of the 'be on the ballot in all 50 states', or '3/4' states, I'd say just be on the ballot in enough states so that if you won EVERY state you are on the ballot in, you'd win enough electoral votes to win.

Anyone who is on enough state ballots to win the presidency should be included in the debates because it is often the debates themselves that determine the election outcome.

[QUOTE]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."

Further, third party candidates like Ross Perot, often introduce topics not traditionally covered by the news media. It was Ross Perot who brought up the concept of paying down the national debt, which helped shape Clinton's economic policy during his first term. In 2004, a race in which both Kerry and Bush are pro Iraqi war/occupation, Ralph Nader's ideas could help the U.S. change its policy of world domination.

If you can get on the ballot in enough states then you should be able to participate.
The strength of this is that it forces the other candidates to have to debate issues that are important to the public at large. Instead we get somewhat scripted debates with "safe" questions that require very little in the way of intelligent thought. After months of campaigning the response and even the favored insults and counter arguments are pure Pavlov.
Nader and Perot and Ventura have all proven the strength of outside voices to the 2 parties as their popularity forced candidates to have to deal with a wider range of issues and defend their stances on others, where as without they would have simply stayed safely "on topic".

Given that the Democrats have spent milions of tax payer dollars and lots of "operative" labor to make sure that Nader is not on the ballot in many states, and given that even a federal court recently had to declare that the CPD was partisan, it seems to me that getting into the nitty gritty of who meets the "criteria" and who doesn't misses the point. Now that the major party conventions are over, and it's clear that neither party has a serious vision for our future, albeit they have plans for their own election (or re-election), it seems to me that this the time to amplify our desire for a real debate and to invest in our future, regardless of who wins on election day.

[Removed spammy link -- please don't ask us to sign petitions or make donations. This is covered in the Rules. Thanks.]

The third Qualification is the problem for third party candidates. And I don't see the reason for it.

Would we have prevented a Democrat or Republican from participating if their poll numbers were that low (Walter Mondale comes to mind)? I doubt it.

The purpose of Presidential debates is to help the American Public understand and know the positions the candidates hold on various issues (OK the real purpose is ratings but that is another story ).

I see no reason to exclude Candidates that have the mathematical possibility of winning. It would seem to me, that by excluding them we are actually excluding them from the possibility of winning by denying them the same free access the big two get in debates.

To make this at least marginally fair, we should make the participants pay for the air time.

I'm reviving this thread because of a recent news. The Arizona Libertarian party has filed a Complaint (.pdf) against Arizona State University, in effect trying to stop the third debate between Bush and Kerry. They are objecting to the exclusive nature of the current debate formats and the use of state funds towards that end.

Attorney David Euchner, on behalf of the party, stated in an LP press release:

This case will likely move quickly due to the quickly-approaching, third debate. It will be interesting to learn how the Courts rule regarding to the bipartisan nature of the current debate Commission.

Good luck, AZLP!

I was at the Green Party website, and Cobb is gonna 'Cross the line' at the debate tonight. He claims that by excluding him and other qualified third party canidates, the CPD is just showing it really is bipartisan.

Also, I don't remember the name of it, but their is a movement to replace the CPD with something else (doubt it will work) and its only requirment (other then the constitutional one) is to be on the ballot of up to 270 electorial votes. If you are on that many ballots (which Nader, and the Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional party canidates are) they are to be included.