In 1960, John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon faced each other in front of television cameras to debate, for the first time, issues important to voters.  The outcome may have been determined more by Nixon's five o'clock shadow and awkward, nervous demeanor than by the content of the debates.  The medium's message was that Nixon had the appearance of a used car salesman and Kennedy that of a charming, witty and trustworthy candidate.

Despite the manipulative, ostensibly superficial character of the medium, debates potentially can serve as the most probative, revealing, heuristic and discursive mechanism to distinguish the leaders from each other in terms of policies and leadership qualities.  Shallow and manipulative paid advertising and itinerant, ubiquitous handshaking are irredeemably incapable of creating well-informed voters.

Unfortunately, the debates fail to meet the above expectations for a number of reasons but one, in particular, violates the basic principles of a fair, equitable and efficacious election process by excluding legitimate leadership candidates from the debates thus denying them visibility and credibility.

In very simple terms, the Democrats and Republicans exercise complete control over the debates including place, timing, participation, format, questioners and frequently the questions to be posed to the candidates.  There is something fundamentally undemocratic about the two leading parties, both financed by corporate money, making critical decisions about the elections that will clearly serve their own interests.

The League of Women Voters organized and sponsored the debates from 1976 to 1984 until the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), funded by tax-deductible corporate contributions, was created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic Parties to capture control of election debates to protect their own interests.  Heading the CPD were the former heads of the Republican and Democratic Parties, Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk respectively.  Since then, the two parties have drafted a secret Memorandum of Understanding for each election which now governs all aspects of the debates but can not be scrutinized by the voters.

On October 2, 1988, the League of Women Voters refused to accept the Memorandum of Understanding, withdrawing their sponsorship of the debates warning that "The demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

There are at least three presidential candidates from parties other than the two major parties including Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader an independent, and Bob Barr, a Libertarian.  Who you say?  Exactly the point in that third party candidates are trapped in a Catch-22 where they are unknown and lack credibility because they are excluded from corporate media coverage, from paid advertising due to insufficient funds, and from participation in the debates.  They are excluded from the debates because the CPD created a criterion whereby parties need 15% in national polls to participate.

The criterion is flagrantly fraudulent and its only purpose is to exclude third party candidates from appearing on stage for the debates who might pose a threat to the entitled major party candidates.  For example, neither Dole nor Clinton wanted to invite Ross Perot to participate in the debates in 1996.  Clinton demanded his exclusion because he enjoyed a 20% lead in the polls and didn't want anyone to change the dynamic of the race.  Dole didn't want to improve Perrot's chances of winning more votes as it would probably be at his expense.  The CPD naturally excluded him notwithstanding that he had won 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election, received $29 million in federal funds and 75% of eligible voters polled wanted him to participate in the debates.

The CPD's criterion is rife with flaws and exposes its real intent.  A criterion based on polling results of an arbitrary 15% of how people might vote at a particular point in time in the upcoming election is inferior to a criterion based on whether they want a particular candidate to be invited to the debates.  The fact that 75% of eligible voters wanted Perot to be involved in the debates is considerably more significant than a poll that reflects the lack of exposure of that candidate.  The voters should decide who participates in the debates, not the leaders of the two major parties.

Another fair and equitable criterion would be to allow any candidate to participate in the debates who is registered in a sufficient number of states where the electoral total is above the minimum number of votes to win the election.  This criterion will ensure that only serious candidates who have at least the potential to win the presidential race will be invited to the debates.

Curiously enough, a federal election has just been called in Canada and Elizabeth May of the Green Party is prepared to pursue the matter in court if she is not allowed to participate in the debates.  Debates in Canada are sponsored by a consortium of major broadcasters who have set the threshold at holding a minimum of one seat in Parliament.  Prior to the election, former independent, Blair Wilson, joined the Green Party apparently overcoming that obstacle but there is now debate about whether the seat should have been originally won by the Green Party.  The Green Party is also running candidates in every riding in Canada.

The Conservative party is opposed to Elizabeth May's  appearance at the debates ostensibly because she cut a deal with the Liberal leader not to run candidates in each others ridings, however it is not an uncommon practice in Canada.  Possibly the real reason is that the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party, has a terrible record on the environment and Elizabeth May, who had been working for environmental groups for many years before entering politics, would not be hesitant to call the public's attention to the governments record. Fortunately, public pressure has forced the Consortium to incude her in the debate.

In both countries, third party candidates who have a legitimate claim to be included in the debates are being denied the opportunity based on political reasons rather than on sound democratic principles.  These candidates' contribution would be to broaden the voter's understanding on a number of issues and to present a different analysis of American society.  Voters are not only entitled to hear all points of views from serious candidates but will be incapable of making an intelligent, informed choice inside the polling booth without their input.  Apparently the Democrats and Republicans are afraid that the voters may become "to-well" informed.

https://stateofdarkness.com (State of Darkness: US Complicity in Genocide since 1945)