Nader telling what should be covered on the news - "Gated" Debates

Now, how can anyone be against having debates that include candidates? Some, perhaps many, are so opposed to it. That's real democratic, isn't it?

The Commission on Presidential Debates -- the organization which controls the past debates and who gets to debate -- is a private corporation formed by the Democratic and the Republican parties. I wasn't aware of that. Nader is right, ... how come major media doesn't bring this out?

This is an important story that should be covered -- among the many that aren't.
_______________________


Published on Monday, January 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
'Gated' Debates Challenged by Citizens Debate Commission
by Ralph Nader

You have heard, no doubt, about Michael Jackson's troubles, but have you heard about a new Presidential Citizens' Debate Commission being established that could give Americans more choices and voices when they watch these debates later this autumn?

Probably not. This is the trouble with the media's sense of what is news and what is important to their readers and audiences. But is it an accurate sense? One story deals with allegations against an entertainer. The other deals with the major way that voters get to see, hear and evaluate candidates vying for the top political position in our country with immense power to affect their lives.

I know a little about the present Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). It is a private corporation created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic Parties to replace the League of Women Voters as debate sponsor and seize complete control over the Presidential Debate process. Its principal objectives are to exclude competitors from 3rd parties or independent candidacies, control the number of debates, their format and questioner(s).

Since 1980 only Ross Perot has gotten on these debates (actually they are parallel interviews). After gaining 19 million votes in 1992, he was kept off the debates in 1996 by his two major competitors.

Unless you are like Perot -- a billionaire--you can campaign in all the states and before large arena audiences and still speak to less than 2 percent of the voters that you would reach by being on just one debate.

These Presidential debates, with the involvement of the major tv networks, become the only way to reach tens of millions of Americans for anon-rich candidate. And the gateway is controlled by a private corporation controlled by the two major parties. Pretty neat cabal, aye, and one that is authorized by no law or regulation. It is a private corporate government.

snip

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0119-03.htm

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

There were around 100 candidates in all. Why is omitting one more acceptable than omitting another? Shouldn't Mr Dodge, the Prohibition candidate, have a place on stage to make his case?

It difficult enough to wade through "debates" and gain anything of value. To open the gates to multiple minor party participation is guaranteed to result in a worthless spectacle-much like we've seen so far in this season's Democratic "joint press conference".

Do I get to draw the line or do you? Less than 4% of American voters chose third party candidate in the last election. Do they deserve equal representation with the 96% of us who voted for major party candidates?

We wont have any this time either. If you think there were debates between Bush and Gore, you need to check the definition. Nader would have made it a real debate, one way or another. They treated him like the plague. This is something to be upset about, no matter how you feel, yourself.