For an average Joe living in US or for an average citizen of the world living elsewhere the culture of open presidential debates is system of openness, fairness and candidature scrutiny, people can hear them on the podium, behind the rostrum or walking on the stage talking directly to the audience with a friendly smile or talking to each other with a cynicism acceptable within the norms of political bias displayed publicly against the opponent. A majority of so called undecided voters shape their opinion after hearing these debates, importance of these debates is reflected from the fact that every major and minor news media of the world is compelled to cover them, regardless of the fact that the language that these candidates speak is none the less an alien language for most of the audience of the world.
Is it a culture of fairness or is it a Matrix that spouts the feeling of candidature scrutiny, lets analyze the debates under the microscope of a few facts oblivious to average listeners otherwise.
The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization was established in 1920 with a vision to improve US systems of government and impact public policies through citizen education and advocacy. It is strictly a non patrician organization that works on grass root level in all 50 states and even to local level of cities and counties, this organization served as a nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor from 1976 until 1984, courageously including popular independent candidates and prohibiting major party campaigns from manipulating debate formats.
In 1980, over President Jimmy Carter’s objections, the League invited independent candidate John B. Anderson to participate in the presidential debates. Carter refused to debate Anderson, but the League did not acquiesce to Carter’s demands. Instead, on September 21, 1980, the League hosted a presidential debate between John Anderson and Republican nominee Ronald Reagan that attracted over 55 million viewers.
In 1984, the major-party campaigns tried to manipulate the debate format, and the League made them pay a price for it. The League had always prohibited candidates from selecting the panelists outright. Instead, the campaigns could submit a list of 15 suggested questioners. After eliminating some names and adding others, the League would send back a shortened list of proposed panelists, and, if absolutely necessary, the candidates could veto a biased or incompetent reporter. That procedure produced no vetoes in 1976 and only one veto in 1980. In 1984, however, all 12 names on the list were rejected. By the end of the process, the League had submitted 71 more names, of which 68 were vetoed, in roughly equal numbers by both camps. Despite angry threats not to participate from the major party candidates, the League held a news conference and lambasted the campaigns for having “totally abused” the process. As a result of the criticism, the panelist selection process for the second debate was entirely different. Not a single journalist was rejected; the candidates were too afraid of the public outcry.
In order to award their candidates maximal control, the Democratic and Republican parties initially planned to directly sponsor the presidential debates themselves. In 1984, Democratic National Committee chairman Charles Mannat and Republican National Committee chairman Frank Fahrenkopf met several times to discuss joint party sponsorship of the debates. “I am a believer and I think chairman Manatt is that the two major political parties should do everything in their power to strengthen their own position,” said Fahrenkopf. “We’re party builders.”
In 1986, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee actually ratified an agreement between Fahrenkopf and Kirk “for the parties to take over presidential debates.” Fifteen months later, Fahrenkopf and Kirk created “**Commission for the Presidential Debates”. **
The CPD battled the League for control of the 1988 presidential debates. After prolonged negotiations, they reached a simple compromise: The CPD would sponsor the first Bush-Dukakis debate, and the League would sponsor the second Bush-Dukakis debate. But just as the League was gearing up for debate negotiations on format, the Bush and Dukakis campaigns handed the two sponsors a secretly negotiated a script dictating every detail of the debates, ranging from the selection of panelists to the color of the timer lights on the podiums. The agreement even mandated that the League will not invite civic group leaders and replace them with a handpicked partisan audience.
In addition to their partisan ties, most board members of the CPD have close ties to multinational corporations. Several are partners of corporate law firms, and collectively, the directors serve on the boards of dozens of companies, ranging from gambling to pharmaceutical to agricultural to insurance industries.
The CPD’s intimate relationship with corporate boardrooms has also directly impacted the financing and character of the presidential debates. The debates are now primarily funded through corporate contributions. The tobacco giant Phillip Morris was a sponsor in 1992 and 1996. Anheuser-Busch sponsored debates in its hometown of St. Louis in 1992, 2000 and 2004. Most importantly, by donating to the CPD, corporations make tax-deductible contributions that benefit both major parties simultaneously. Donations to the nonpartisan LWV were primarily considered civic charity. Corporations, however, perceive donations to the bipartisan CPD to be bipartisan political contributions.
Historically, third party candidates have played critical roles in US democracy by introducing popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, social security, child labor laws, public schools, the direct election of senators, paid vacation, and the formation of labor unions. Excluded third-party candidates, however, can’t break the bipartisan conspiracy of silence on issues where the major parties, possibly so as not to upset business contributors, are at odds with most of the American people. Since 1992, the CPD has required that candidates reach 15 percent in national polls to participate in the presidential debates, and the criteria, which have yet to be changed, are the greatest obstacle to democratic presidential debate.
The criterion of 15 percent in national polls and the adopted methodology to come up With the results is in direct conflict with the wishes of American people, seventy-six percent of registered voter supported Ross Perot’s inclusion in the 1996 debates, and 64 percent wanted Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan included in the 2000 presidential debates. Registered independents now constitute a plurality of voters, and two-thirds of Americans want a viable third-party to compete in federal races. (As the major parties and their funding sources have become increasingly similar, the electorate has becomes thirstier for alternate voices and agendas.) The CPD is relying on polling data to reject third party candidates although polling data often show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want third-party candidates in the debates. The CPD is simply posing the wrong polling question. If the CPD is going to rely on polling data, it should simply ask whom the public wants in the debates.
The broadcasts of the presidential debates this year will reach 60 million or more Americans. The array of candidates running includes two former members of Congress **Libertarian Bob Barr **and Green Cynthia McKinney as well as Ralph Nader, but viewers will see only two choices: a Democrat and a Republican. The rest of candidates are not invited, their voices have been shunned from the main stream media. There has been mixed or contrived “mixed” argument about the inclusion of third party and independent candidates in the debates.
Those who say that third parties cannot win are wrong. Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura won the 1998 Minnesota governor’s race after appearing in the debates. “If you are allowed in the debates, the candidate that no one gives a chance to, lo and behold, can win,” Ventura said. My running mate, Matt Gonzalez, polled at 6 percent before being included in the 2003 San Francisco mayoral debates. He ended up with 47 percent of the vote.
Presidential candidates Sen. McCain and Sen. Barack Obama will be asked a series of questions crafted by the public, but selected by the media. The authors of the letter would like the ability to let the most popular questions “bubble up” to where they would be used in the debate. The candidate on the other hand does not have to do much but to stick to their talking points because they have a tacit assurance that either the follow up questions will not be allowed or will not push them from their talking points.
Sense. John McCain and Barack Obama have spent much of their time railing against the control of Washington by special interest groups and lobbyists, but some of those same groups are now spending millions of dollars to bring the presidential face-off to the public.
Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., the International Bottled Water Association and Hewlett-Packard-owned Electronic Data Systems are among the private firms and organizations sponsoring the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which hosts the forums every four years with that CPD, when asked, declined to outline what sponsors receive in return for their financial commitment not to mention that sponsors of debates have direct ties with the candidates like Anheuser and Electronic Data Systems have ties to Mr. McCain.
To cut the long story, which can go on and on, short, the current format of the presidential and vice presidential debates is mere an eye wash in the name of openness and fair opportunity for the candidates to interact semi directly with the people who they are asking to vote for them. At the same time it is an eye opener for those who consider the system to be fair and absolute democratic. People are not left with a different choice, they have to select none but one of them, a total disregard for the popular public opinion always raise the political temperature among the masses, a sense of antipathy towards the establish system ultimately brings the whole system down to its own foot print.
references:
1)Internet generally
2)LWV web site
3)Open Debates Forums
I have copied some of the text , wrote some myself, formatted to make it short.