Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: We Need 3 Major Parties [View all]

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
84. The two corporate parties seized control of the debates
Mon May 27, 2013, 12:39 PM
May 2013

after Ross Perot scared the hell out of them by challenging their domination of the political process.

From the '70's until 1988, the League of Women Voters managed the Presidential debates. During this time, it was easier for third parties to gain access, and there was at least some effort to provide a format that included some genuine substantive questions, time for responses, and follow-up questioning.

That all changed when Ross Perot ran for President and shocked everyone by gaining popular support as an Independent, running on issues including the corporate "sucking" of jobs overseas and environmental destruction. The two parties took quick action together to seize control of the debate process, including the entrance rules and the format and substance of the debates. The League of Women voters withdrew in disgust and issued a strongly worded press release (see bolded below). Their warning was absolutely on target:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential...

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a dramatic press release:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee.

Some have criticized the exclusion of third party and independent candidates as well as the parallel interview format as a minimum of getting 15% in opinion polls is required to be invited. In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission (CDC) was formed with the stated mission of returning control of the debates to an independent nonpartisan body rather than a bipartisan body. Nevertheless, the CPD retained control of the debates that year and in 2008.




We need to reform the entire damned system. We need to get the money out of politics and the corporations out of the parties. The two corporate party system we have now is specifically designed to prevent other voices from being heard.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

We Need 3 Major Parties [View all] LuvNewcastle May 2013 OP
They'll become Independents long before they become Democrats. JaneyVee May 2013 #1
Let's hope so. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #3
I completely agree. JaneyVee May 2013 #6
That wouldn't change anything procon May 2013 #28
What we need is one that works randr May 2013 #2
The Tea Party Christian Right will never separate from the business sector of the GOP steelmania75 May 2013 #4
I think there's more of them than that. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #8
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #5
I've thought about this a lot............. socialist_n_TN May 2013 #7
All I know is, we'll definitely have 4 parties if LuvNewcastle May 2013 #10
Well it's inevitable then.......... socialist_n_TN May 2013 #17
some republicans might start finding out they datasuspect May 2013 #13
I don't think they'll change, at least not enough. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #21
You can't stop anyone from joining a party. former9thward May 2013 #9
You can make them very uncomfortable. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #11
Those are elected officials. former9thward May 2013 #15
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #14
That's one thing they do right here in Mississippi. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #19
I'm taking about the run-off in the primaries. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #23
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #24
They nominee has to win a majority here. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #26
Not sure that's a good idea. Savannahmann May 2013 #12
I'm not talking about dragging the Democratic Party LuvNewcastle May 2013 #18
You're overlooking the vast number of potential voters who are further left, waiting for ... Scuba May 2013 #76
The more choices, the better. bigwillq May 2013 #20
The Winner-take-All system doesn't allow for a 3-party system in our government. BlueCaliDem May 2013 #22
Our liberals are nowhere near as radical as the Teabaggers. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #25
How will that work with the electoral votes? Look at 1968 for instance. graham4anything May 2013 #27
I think the electoral college would favor us. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #29
You dont get it. You need 1 more than 50% of electoral votes to become President. Otherwise... stevenleser May 2013 #51
I suspect three-party systems are inherently unstable. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #30
If by "unstable" you mean a greater chance of change, LuvNewcastle May 2013 #31
No, I mean "collapse into two-party systems, and stay that way". N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #34
You could be right or you might be wrong. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #36
How many political parties there will be isn't a decision made by any "we". Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #43
Two party systems are also unstable FarCenter May 2013 #59
On the national scale it seems stable. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #60
In the US each party has enjoyed long stretches of control FarCenter May 2013 #66
I think we should have 5, all in the debates Ter May 2013 #32
I agree. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #35
I personally don't think there should be any debates anymore. All they are is gotchas. graham4anything May 2013 #44
Provided its real libertarians LostOne4Ever May 2013 #78
The two corporate parties seized control of the debates woo me with science May 2013 #84
We need complete campaign finance reform. Until we have that and politicians octoberlib May 2013 #33
I'd like to see publicly financed elections, not a penny LuvNewcastle May 2013 #39
+1000000 woo me with science May 2013 #83
Teabaggers and conservatives are different from "republicans"? They are all the same: Republicans. AlinPA May 2013 #37
All of them are our political foes, certainly, but LuvNewcastle May 2013 #40
The political system, by design, defaults to two. nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #38
I don't see why we can't have more than two parties. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #41
It is the winner take all system nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #42
I would really like to see us have a constitutional convention. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #46
The other problem you have nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #48
The Constitution is holy writ to some people. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #53
Exactly, this is a serious problem nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #56
Corporations are only wiling to fund a two party system, so we're shit out of luck...... piratefish08 May 2013 #45
You're probably right, but we've got to try. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #47
Mathematically, three parties doesn't work bhikkhu May 2013 #49
We had 3 candidates in 1992 and 1996. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #50
I was disapointed in Perot's pick of a senile VP, as well as his dropping out/in markiv May 2013 #57
That VP choice was a major mistake. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #64
most nations have more than 2 parties markiv May 2013 #52
Good analogy LuvNewcastle May 2013 #54
A dozen parties where no party had a majority would be a good system bhikkhu May 2013 #68
well, the two party system isnt doing it for me markiv May 2013 #73
3 parties would be worse - that's the point bhikkhu May 2013 #74
I don't think that it's a matter of whether it would be worse or not............ socialist_n_TN May 2013 #80
Why would the repugs split while they are a minority? bhikkhu May 2013 #82
They would split BECAUSE they don't feel represented. Remember... socialist_n_TN May 2013 #87
If there was an OWS party mick063 May 2013 #55
We need 3 Major Parties? bvar22 May 2013 #58
Huey Long had a good story about that. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #63
Thank You! bvar22 May 2013 #65
republicans will never let their bagger 'squidges' (R-word not mine)free,they're not done USING them Sunlei May 2013 #61
That was made impossible by the framers of the Constitution. DevonRex May 2013 #62
those are very good points- "everything republicans do is legal" by sunlei 5/2013 and........ Sunlei May 2013 #67
Exactly. They made slavery legal and ensured it'd be damned hard to get rid of. DevonRex May 2013 #69
We need Instant Runoff Voting Martin Eden May 2013 #70
Read this book: Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #71
Canada has had three parties or more for 70 years. We are a liberal country. We've applegrove May 2013 #72
The reason the Koch's formed the Tea Party was to drag the Country further right. Scuba May 2013 #75
We have 6 major parties. Democracyinkind May 2013 #77
All good ideas-But fredamae May 2013 #79
The system virtually locks in two parties, with change accommodated through primaries. Jim Lane May 2013 #81
What we need is reform of the system so that non-corporate voices can run and be heard. woo me with science May 2013 #85
Most PEOPLE don't comprehend the simple fact that it was designed DevonRex May 2013 #86
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We Need 3 Major Parties»Reply #84