Bi-Partisan Presidential Debate System A Sham

Cybercast News Service
By Paul Weyrich
Monday, March 1, 2004

So, Ralph Nader is running for president again. It is hard to believe he is 70 years old. Unless he wants to be remembered as the liberal Harold Stassen, this will likely be his last run.

It is hard to find anyone with whom I disagree more. But he does have a significant following and he does raise provocative questions?

Should Ralph Nader be included in the Presidential debates this Fall? I believe he should. But he won't be if the so-called "bi-partisan debate committee" is still in business. In fact, the current arrangement for Presidential debates is a shameful affront to democracy.

The League of Women Voters handled Presidential debates for many years. While I am hardly a partisan of that organization, there is clear evidence that they handled the debates fairly.

Some years ago the two major political parties got together, dumped the League, and set up a system designed to avoid many issues and to exclude third or even fourth party candidates who might raise issues the two major parties don't want to face.

In 1996, Ross Perot had millions of dollars of federal money because of his remarkable 19% showing in 1992. But Republican candidate Bob Dole wanted -- more than anything -- to exclude Perot from the debates. So, negotiators for Bill Clinton, the incumbent president, had Dole over the proverbial barrel.

The Clinton campaign agreed to exclude Perot (Clinton worried Perot might take votes away from him as well, which would be a problem in states with close races). In return, Dole had to concede everything else.

He surrendered the date on which debates were held. Clinton wanted them opposite major sports events to insure that less people watched the debates. Dole caved on the actual number of debates. There were only two. He caved on the formats. He caved on the moderators. It was a Clinton show all the way AND Perot was not there to raise questions that the Republicans and Democrats didn't want to answer.

That is one of the reasons that people from all across the political spectrum have formed a Citizens' Debate Commission to get back to a non-partisan approach to Presidential debates.

Ordinarily you could not get representatives from Greenpeace, the Family Research Council, Pat Buchanan, and John Anderson, the former Republican candidate who ran as an independent in 1980, in the same room together. But indeed, they, along with a representative group of the more than 50 national organizations, did a nationally televised press conference to announce a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission against the current bi-partisan debate operation.

The current system takes corporate money in violation of the regulations promulgated by the FEC in order to run their little exclusive club. That needs to be stopped. And there has to be a more inclusive standard adopted to provide for third party candidates who have a national following.

The current debate cabal requires a third party candidate to have an average of 15% in five polls for several weeks leading up to the first debate in order to be included in the debates. There is no candidate who could meet that criterion. It is a system designed to make sure that a new party doesn't make it. It is a system designed to exclude questions the two parties don't want to face. It is a system that has to go.

The people who have signed on to the new citizens effort for presidential debates probably could not agree on any other issue. It is truly an effort that runs from left through the middle to the right.

All of us agree on one issue, namely that the current bi-partisan debate committee, co-chaired by former Republican party chairman, Frank Fahrenkopf, and Paul Kirk for the Democrats, is rigged and has to be replaced. We have no illusions. It is going to take a lot of time and much effort to get this done. But it must get done. And Nader, as much as I think he is dead wrong on other issues, should be on that platform in the likely Bush/Kerry match-up. He will force the political parties to answer questions that need to be answered.

If there is a non-partisan (as opposed to a bi-partisan) commission handling the Presidential debates, they can be opened up. Several benefits will follow. The number of debates can be increased. The format can be changed so that real people get a chance to ask real questions. Think back to Iowa.

It was an ordinary citizen making a point to former Governor Howard Dean that began Dean's downward slide. That is real democracy in action. Imagine ordinary citizens getting to ask these candidates the questions that concern real Americans - as opposed to reporters from the elite media contingent pitching softballs from the limited topics chosen by the two parties.

An ordinary voter might make or break a Presidential candidate and make for exciting viewing. Only half of the number of people watched the televised debates in 2000 that did so in 1992. The inclusion of real people might boost those ratings! Perot was in the 1992 debates. They were at least interesting. If voters believe that the debates will mean something, interest will increase, and that is good for all of us.

Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. He is also a director of Open Debates and a member of the Citizens' Debate Commission.