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:
Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgiveness
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
David Yearsley
King Arthur in Berlin
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail