Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
It’s your last chance to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch in 2017. Help us gear up to fight the status-quo in 2018! Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Monopolizing the Debates

by

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
December 15, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
What’s Not Happening With Mr. Jones
Timothy M. Gill
The Height of Racial Resentment: White Cops
Andrew Levine
Democrats Have Much to Learn and the Odious Have Much to Teach Them
Luciana Bohne
Operation Jerusalem Capital: Second Balfour Declaration or Arab-Israeli NATO?
Anthony DiMaggio
#Me Too: Women are Speaking Out, Are We Listening?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out Walked Monk
Ann Robertson - Bill Leumer
The Demoralizing Impact of Trump, But Hope Has Arrived
Samantha Paez – Sandra de los Santos
The Most Dangerous Place for Mexican Women is in the Streets
Martin Billheimer
Assassins of the Image: the CIA as Cultural Gatekeeper
Jérôme Duval
From Slave Trade to Debt: Occupation Disguised as “Discovery”
Vijay Prashad
The October Revolution
John Wight
The Grenfell Fire UK Establishment Circus
Steve Martinot
Twisted Thinking: Police Militarization in Berkeley
Robert Fantina
Juvenile Delinquency in U.S. Government
Dave Lindorff
Stupidity and Blindness Have Destroyed Whatever Democracy the US Ever Had
Pete Dolack
You are Working Harder and Getting Paid Less
Joseph Natoli
The Axioms of the Other
Susan Babbitt
Why Don Quixote?
Ralph Nader
What Does Trump Mean by “Make America Great Again”?
Ramzy Baroud
Towards a New Palestinian Beginning
Binoy Kampmark
Escaping Reality: Roy Moore and the Rage of Decency
Mark Luskus
Corporate Interests Are Warping the Internet
Brian Terrell
A Story of Two Blockades: New York City and Yemen
Ron Jacobs
Sinking in the Swamp
Brian Cloughley
Prepare! Pursue!! Prevail!!!
Matthew Stevenson
Into Africa: The Tanzania-Zambia Train to Nowhere
Jill Richardson
We Agree Assault is Bad, Now Let’s Agree on How to Punish It
Jeremy Corbyn
The Greatest Threats to Our Common Humanity
Walter Clemens – Stephen Advocate
The Amoral Code of America’s Dirty Old Men
Sheldon Richman
Trump & Co.’s Vile Anti-Immigrationism
Jessicah Pierre
Trump’s Cruel Policy on Haitian Refugees
George Wuerthner
Water Rights or Water Privileges?
Nick Pemberton
What I Learned in Ghana 
Missy Comley Beattie
It’s Capitalism
Tom H. Hastings
Stop Trump movement
Thomas Knapp
The Real Internet Censorship Threat
Robert Koehler
Peace on the Far Side of Nuclear Weapons
Kary Love
Christmas Letter to Jesus
Tom Clifford
China: From the Treasure Fleet to One Belt, One Road
Charles R. Larson
Trump’s Blueprint for State Capture
M. Shadee Malaklou
Jay-Z’s 4:44 Moves Black Radical Thought Through and Beyond the Classroom
Michael Dickinson
What About Our Debts, Pope Francis?
Phil Rockstroh
What Was Verifiably Great About America: Fragments of a Memoir Set to a Musical Soundtrack
David Yearsley
Froberger’s Musical Therapy
Edward Curtin
A Man Turns
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail