Commission may have wrongly excluded third-parties from debate audience

[Kadie]

Commission may have wrongly excluded third-parties from debate audience

SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(08-13) 09:46 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Commission on Presidential Debates may have violated federal election laws when it refused to allow any third-party presidential candidates into the debate halls to watch the 2000 presidential debates, a federal judge has ruled.

In a decision issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. said the Federal Election Commission, which initially dismissed the claims in March, should open a full investigation into whether the debate commission acted in a partisan manner. But he said the FEC is under no obligation to make its findings before the first presidential debate, scheduled to take place on Sept. 30 at the University of Miami.

Current and former third-party candidates contend that the debate commission is partisan toward Republican and Democratic candidates and, under federal law, should not be permitted to sponsor the debates.

The debate commission argued that it excluded third-party candidates such as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan from the audience in 2000 because it feared they would disrupt the live telecast of the debates.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/13/politics1246EDT0600.DTL

[leftyandproud]

1. good news

I would love to see a five way debate...Give Americans a real choice.

democrats..republicans...libertarian...socialist...green...constitution...reform...

Get every party in there and get every issue in the public domain. If the major parties want to survive, they will be forced to listen to the people and adopt the issues 3rd parties promote.

[Old and In the Way]

2. And distract from the contrast between the only 2 viable candidates

I'm sure Bush will be happy to share the stage with a dozen or so imposters. The more the merrier. He'd like nothing better; hell, I'm betting the RNC is demanding that every and all 3rd Party candidate be given equal time during the debates. If they can diffuse the contrast between Kerry and Bush....they win.

[Barret]

7. Hmmm...

We should have run off voting. This would help eliminate the 2 party system.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Yes we should.

But that's not gonna happen anytime soon. And I certainly don't want to do anything that helps Dimson's election (or re-selection) chances in this race.

[IndianaGreen]

14. The Libertarian candidate would be strongly against the war

as would any of the candidates from the Socialist, Green, and other independent parties, and all of them would cite different reasons for being against the war while calling for a troop withdrawal.

We Hoosiers have been blessed with debates for state and federal office in which candidates for all the parties on the ballot debate. It is quite interesting to watch the broad range of views and it actually makes the GOP and Democratic candidates present a more coherent message.

As far as the Presidential debates are concerned, the problem is with the debate commission itself. It is a creation of the duopoly and it has actually done harm to the election process by benefiting the candidate that is better prepped for the debate as opposed to the candidate that is better prepared for the Presidency.

I have opposed the current format of the Presidential debates for quite some time, and you can look it up in the DU archives. I prefer a return to the non-partisan League of Women Voters whose sponsorship of Presidential debates gave us such gems as the Kennedy-Nixon debates, etc.

There are many Americans, progressive and conservative, that oppose the current charade that passes for presidential debates nowadays and have been working to change the system, long before there was a Nader running for President.

It is too bad that we have partisan robots that are not interested in discussing the merits of an issue, such as debate reform, electoral reform, or even changing the Constitution to allow for a non-native born American to run for President, before they sink to their infantile cries of "Nader" or "Arnold." The best answer to their robotic cries is to shout "democracy" and "Jennifer Granholm"!

The Compromised Commission on Presidential Debates
Why Do TV Networks Allow It to Decide if the Two Major Parties Will Face Competition?

August 29, 2000

As the debate over debates heats up, the Bush campaign is balking at participation in the events proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Bush's concerns revolve around format and venues. But few journalists covering this story have looked into the legitimate questions about the Commission, especially whether the CPD is independent enough to decide which candidates get to participate.

The following timeline reveals a history of politicking, insider-dealing and exclusion camouflaged behind "nonpartisan" rhetoric. Journalists should ask the TV networks why they are ceding authority to decide whether Democrats and Republicans face competition to a Commission so beholden to the two major parties.

Debates are crucial to the functioning of a democracy. Recent history shows that third-party candidates bring fresh issues and viewpoints to debates, as well as new viewers and voters. Shouldn't decisions about who participates in debates be made by journalists and genuinely nonpartisan civic organizations -- not by the two most powerful parties themselves?

http://www.fair.org/articles/compromised-commission.html

[Dookus]

10. The article above

refers to the 2000 debates, not this years, and even more importantly it's not about PARTICIPATING in the debates. It's about whether Nader and Buchanan were wrong excluded FROM THE AUDIENCE.

[napi21]

3. I thought 3rd party's were permitted if they had 15% in polls?

That's how Perot got into the debates in 92.

I want viable 3rd party candidates in the debates too, but I thought it wasn't giving anybody a fair shake this year when there were 8 to 10 candidates in the Dem debates. Way too many people so nobody had enough time to really get any message across.

Do you really see a problem with the 15% rule?

[borat sagdiyev]

4. what polls?

depending on the sample size , anyone could get 15%.

[napi21]

5. Apparently not. Nader failed in 2000, but Perot did in 92.

Here's some info I found:

Founded in 1987, the debate commission is a nonprofit corporation that allows candidates with at least 15% support in national polls to participate in its debates. Minor-party candidates have long complained that they are unfairly excluded, but the commission says it wants to limit participation to those candidates with a realistic chance of winning the election

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12684

I don't know if this is the best answer, but I think it would be a disaster to have a lot of candidates in the final debates. There has to be some measurement level to demonstrate a viable candidate...someone who has at least a slight chance of winning.

[Stark Raving Sane]

9. Tautology

Candidate X is viable -> Candidate X has a realistic chance of winning.

Candidate X has a realistic chance of winning -> Candidate X is viable.

Tautological arguments are often used to deliberately create
cognitive dissonance.

[geek tragedy]

13. I'll see your tautology and raise you a slippery slope.

So, how many candidates should be allowed on stage? Nader has no party, so if you're going to include him you should include the Greens, the Libertarians, the Communists, the White Nationalists, and the weirdo at the local mall talking about the free coinage of silver.

A party earns its place on the national scene by building at the local level--not by whining.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi borat sagdiyev!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sadiesworld]

8. Unbelieveable.

Yeah, make sure the monkey has as little time as possible to illustrate what a clueless sack of shit he is.

:argh:

Time for a :beer: break.

[Dookus]

11. The article

is about excluding Nader and Buchanan from the AUDIENCE in 2000.