FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

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:
August 14, 2018
Daniel Falcone
On Taking on the Mobilized Capitalist Class in Elections: an Interview With Noam Chomsky
Karl Grossman
Turning Space Into a War Zone
Jonah Raskin
“Fuck Wine Grapes, Fuck Wines”: the Coming Napafication of the World
Manuel García, Jr.
Climate Change Bites Big Business
Alberto Zuppi - Cesar Chelala
Argentina at a Crossroads
Chris Wright
On “Bullshit Jobs”
Rosita A. Sweetman
Dear Jorge: On the Pope’s Visit to Ireland
Binoy Kampmark
Authoritarian Revocations: Australia, Terrorism and Citizenship
Sara Johnson
The Incredible Benefits of Sagebrush and Juniper in the West
Martin Billheimer
White & Red Aunts, Capital Gains and Anarchy
Walter Clemens
Enough Already! Donald J. Trump Resignation Speech
August 13, 2018
Michael Colby
Migrant Injustice: Ben & Jerry’s Farmworker Exploitation
John Davis
California: Waging War on Wildfire
Alex Strauss
Chasing Shadows: Socialism Won’t Go Away Because It is Capitalism’s Antithesis 
Kathy Kelly
U.S. is Complicit in Child Slaughter in Yemen
Fran Shor
The Distemper of White Spite
Chad Hanson
We Know How to Protect Homes From Wildfires. Logging Isn’t the Way to Do It
Faisal Khan
Nawaz Sharif: Has Pakistan’s Houdini Finally Met his End?
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Versus Journalism: the Travails of Fourth Estate
Wim Laven
Honestly Looking at Family Values
Fred Gardner
Exploiting Styron’s Ghost
Dean Baker
Fact-Checking the Fact-Checker on Medicare-for-All
Weekend Edition
August 10, 2018
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Militarizing Space: Starship Troopers, Same As It Ever Was
Andrew Levine
No Attack on Iran, Yet
Melvin Goodman
The CIA’s Double Standard Revisited
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The Grifter’s Lament
Aidan O'Brien
In Italy, There are 12,000 American Soldiers and 500,000 African Refugees: Connect the Dots 
Robert Fantina
Pity the Democrats and Republicans
Ishmael Reed
Am I More Nordic Than Members of the Alt Right?
Kristine Mattis
Dying of Consumption While Guzzling Snake Oil: a Realist’s Perspective on the Environmental Crisis
James Munson
The Upside of Defeat
Brian Cloughley
Pentagon Spending Funds the Politicians
Pavel Kozhevnikov
Cold War in the Sauna: Notes From a Russian American
Marilyn Garson
If the Gaza Blockade is Bad, Does That Make Hamas Good?
Sean Posey
Declinism Rising: An Interview with Morris Berman  
Jack Dresser
America’s Secret War on Yemen
Howard Lisnoff
The Use and Misuse of Charity: the Luck of the Draw in a Predatory System
Louis Proyect
In the Spirit of the Departed Munsees
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Alex Jones and Infowars
Mundher Al Adhami
On the Iraqi Protests, Now in Their Second Month 
Jeff Mackler
Nicaragua: Dynamics of an Interrupted Revolution
Robert Hunziker
Peter Wadhams, Professor Emeritus, Ocean Physics
David Macaray
Missouri Stands Tall on the Labor Front
Thomas Knapp
I Didn’t Join Facebook to “Feel Safe”
John Carroll Md
Are Haitian Doctors Burned Out?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail