Debates

“The experience of Ventura and Perot suggests that third-party candidates polling below 15 percent can surge in the polls if included in the debates, and possibly even win the election. In a country where the plurality of voters are independent, where routinely only half of the electorate votes, and where the two major parties are increasingly converging as their funding sources overlap, compelling third-party candidates allowed to fully participate may have “a realistic chance of victory.”

Imagine a three-way race in which 37 percent of the voters support the democratic nominee, 29 percent support the Republican, 14 percent support the third-party candidate, and 20 percent are undecided. Under the CPD’s rules, the third-party candidate would be excluded. But if that third-party candidate could accomplish what Perot did as a result of the debates -increase his or her poll numbers by 285 percent- that third-party candidate would win the election. Or if that third-party candidate could accomplish what Ventura did as a result of the debates- increase his or her poll numbers by 270 percent- that third-party candidate would win the election.

Consequently, the CPD may be excluding would-be presidents from the debates. The Portland Press Herald editorialized that the 15 percent threshold meant:

A third-party candidate could have the support of 28 million Americans of voting age, receive millions in public election financing and yet be denied the chance to debate his or her opponents. That would be an injustice, not only to the candidate, but to the independent-minded voters who could be swayed by an articulate and persuasive third-nominee.

Jesse Ventura called the CPD “just a clear case again of the two parties banding together to keep down the rise of the third party. It’s a standard thing that has historically happened many, many times. I think the public should be outraged over this.”

Presidential debates are supposed to provide the public with information with which to choose a president. If the purpose of the debates is to inform the public, but the criterion for entry into the debates is a static measurement of predebate public opinion determined from little information, then the debates are not serving their purpose. The CPD’s construction of the debates prevents the presentation of real debates, thereby institutionalizing the bipartisan status quo at the expense of voter education and participation. In 2000, Oliver North, former lieutenant colonel and talk show host, wrote:

“Given the appalling lack of engagement by Americans eligible to participate in our electoral process, the CPD should have paid more attention to their own mission, “to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.”… Including Buchanan, Browne and Nader in the debates might or might not be in the best interest of the Republican and Democratic parties – and my advocating their inclusion won’t endear me to most of my friends in the GOP. But if broadening participation in the debates increases public participation in our political process, that can only be good for America.”

-The above text was taken from George Farah’s book “No Debate”
published by Seven Stories Press.

Bob Vander Plaats answers Rock The Debate question