THE SCRIPT SHOULDN'T WIN

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Editorial

Monday, June 13, 2005

What kind of debate should the United States have before it elects a president?

Perhaps the word "debate" is too strong these days. Candidates for the executive office duel with slogans and occasional news conferences. The so-called debates are tepid, scripted and rarely illuminating.

Last week a federal court ruled that the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates had the right to exclude Ralph Nader and any other third-party candidate.

The commission "acted not out of any preference for major-party candidates, but rather because it feared one or more third-party candidates would disrupt the debate," said the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

We don't agree. The threat of the debate's "disruption" was present, but manageable. Instead, it's more likely any threat of disruption increased because of the limited participation. At one debate, for example, a Green Party supporter was arrested after an act of civil disobedience.

Last year a coalition of pro-democracy organizations released a report that called for a new way of thinking. "The debates have been reduced to a series of glorified bipartisan news conferences, in which the Republican and Democratic candidates merely exchange memorized sound bites," said the report, "Deterring Democracy: How the Commission on Presidential Debates Undermines Democracy."

It's time to end the debate monopoly of the Commission on Presidential Debates and open up the process to more voices.

This country needs a real debate next time it picks a leader.

On the Web: Opendebates.com