Monopolizing the Debates

Soon most of the country will be watching the debates.  To be told that you will be watching the ‘debates’ is an insult to your intelligence.  They’re not forums to inform and enlighten the electorate, but spectacles where the candidates preen and pander to the viewers;  political performances to showcase the triumph of form over substance.  I was wondering why they are even called debates instead of grudge matches?  This year features two of the most unlikable wrestlers, I mean candidates, in history.  In this corner we have Donald “The Demagogue” Trump and in the other corner we have Hillary “The Crusher” Clinton.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a non-profit, tax exempt organization.  In their mission statement they talk about providing: “the best possible information to viewers and listeners” and how voter education is one of their goals.  Any person reading this might think that the CPD is just another charitable organization demonstrating their altruism. Nothing could be further from the truth!  Even though the CPD claims to be independent of the two major parties, their past and present leadership consists of democratic and republican politicians (with an occasional media acolyte).  Because none of the members is a current office holder, the CPD likes to claim they are non-partisan. As the Libertarian SuperPAC claims in their open letter to the CPD:  “Bi-partisan is not the same as non-partisan”.  The debates always did highlight the two duopoly candidates, but the CPD seeks to make sure any non-duopoly candidates with a different point of view aren’t heard.

Throughout the years, the number of debates has varied between two and four.  Recently the CPD has settled on four debates, with one of them between the vice-presidential candidates, but it’s their  decision to limit the debates to candidates with over 15% in the polls that has drawn scrutiny.  They initiated this 15% threshold to be included in the debates in 2000.  In the hundred years before this decision, there were some presidential candidates who received less than 15% of the vote, yet won votes in the electoral college.  That hasn’t happened in almost 50 years, thanks in large part to duopoly members controlling who is in the debates.

The CPD gives the reason for the 15% threshold is the amount of candidates running for president.  While it’s true the logistics would be hard to overcome if everyone was included, the 15% threshold is equally absurd.  The candidates must receive 15%  in 5 polls taken weeks before the election.  Polls are often wrong and ones taken weeks before the election don’t always predict the winner.  Many candidates aren’t even on enough state ballots to win the election.  Some are, yet they aren’t included in the debates because of this threshold.   Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in all 50 states  and Jill Stein of the Green Party is on the ballot in 44 states.

The CPD claims that candidate who don’t reach this 15% threshold enjoy:  “only very modest levels of public support” and 15% is about 32 million registered voters.  Even a third of this number is over 10 million voters and this is not modest support.   Among other reasons given by the CPD for the 15% threshold is; that inclusion of candidates in the debates who don’t meet the 15% would jeopardize “the voter education purpose of the debates”.  Exclusion of ideas that differ from your own isn’t part of the education process, unless you consider mind control via media manipulation to be educational.

The League of Women Voters used to sponsor the debates, when they withdrew their sponsorship, they said that they refused to:  “help perpetrate a fraud”  and fraud is exactly what the CPD is perpetrating.

If there is a numerical limit candidates need to reach in the polls to be included in the debates, shouldn’t there also be a numerical limit in unfavorable ratings to be excluded from the debates?  If candidates reach a certain level of unfavorable ratings, why should they be included in the debates?  Both major parties have candidates with historically high disapproval ratings, yet they will both be in the debates.  The televised debates should include both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, this would give the American public a real discussion of the issues and not just regurgitated duopoly talking points.

I think the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, has the best polices to become president.  Duopoly members and their apologists will tell you she’s just a spoiler, but no candidate is a spoiler, besides the duopoly uses the same argument EVERY election, no matter who the candidate is.  Stop listening to bogus duopoly arguments, think for yourself!  Jill Stein has said:  “Forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it – because they do”.


More articles by:
Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography
Kathy Deacon
Me, My Parents and Red Scares Long Gone
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Rexless Abandon
Andrew Levine
Good Enemies Are Hard To Find: Therefore Worry
Jim Kavanagh
What to Expect From a Trump / Kim Summit
Ron Jacobs
Trump and His Tariffs
Joshua Frank
Drenched in Crude: It’s an Oil Free For All, But That’s Not a New Thing
Gary Leupp
What If There Was No Collusion?
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: Bernard Fall Dies on the Street Without Joy
Robert Fantina
Bad to Worse: Tillerson, Pompeo and Haspel
Brian Cloughley
Be Prepared, Iran, Because They Want to Destroy You
Richard Moser
What is Organizing?
Scott McLarty
Working Americans Need Independent Politics
Rohullah Naderi
American Gun Violence From an Afghan Perspective
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Why Trump’s Tariff Travesty Will Not Re-Industrialize the US
Ted Rall
Democrats Should Run on Impeachment
Robert Fisk
Will We Ever See Al Jazeera’s Investigation Into the Israel Lobby?
Kristine Mattis
Superunknown: Scientific Integrity Within the Academic and Media Industrial Complexes
John W. Whitehead
Say No to “Hardening” the Schools with Zero Tolerance Policies and Gun-Toting Cops
Edward Hunt
UN: US Attack On Syrian Civilians Violated International Law
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Outside History
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Long Hard Road
Victor Grossman
Germany: New Faces, Old Policies
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
The Iraq Death Toll 15 Years After the US Invasion
Binoy Kampmark
Amazon’s Initiative: Digital Assistants, Home Surveillance and Data
Chuck Collins
Business Leaders Agree: Inequality Hurts The Bottom Line
Jill Richardson
What We Talk About When We Talk About “Free Trade”
Eric Lerner – Jay Arena
A Spark to a Wider Fire: Movement Against Immigrant Detention in New Jersey
Negin Owliaei
Teachers Deserve a Raise: Here’s How to Fund It
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
What to Do at the End of the World? Interview with Climate Crisis Activist, Kevin Hester
Kevin Proescholdt
Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke Attacks America’s Wilderness
Franklin Lamb
Syrian War Crimes Tribunals Around the Corner
Beth Porter
Clean Energy is Calling. Will Your Phone Company Answer?
George Ochenski
Zinke on the Hot Seat Again and Again
Lance Olsen
Somebody’s Going to Extremes
Robert Koehler
Breaking the Ice
Pepe Escobar
The Myth of a Neo-Imperial China
Graham Peebles
Time for Political Change and Unity in Ethiopia
Terry Simons
10 American Myths “Refutiated”*
Thomas Knapp
Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
Louis Proyect
The 2018 Socially Relevant Film Festival
David Yearsley
Keaton’s “The General” and the Pernicious Myths of the Heroic South