 "Photo: Peter Springsteen | The News Record")
In this so-called free and open democratic process, the American electorate is being denied access to all of the presidential candidates.
In the two previous presidential debates, Americans have heard what Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Sen. Barack Obama have to say. But what about the other candidates on the ballot in Ohio and many other states across the country?
Candidates Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr and Richard Duncan haven’t been provided a platform to speak like McCain and Obama. Nor has the so-called “non-partisan” Commission on Presidential Debates invited any of the aforementioned candidates to the previously held debates.
Bloody fantastic.
For those of you who were once excited that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton had a real chance to be president and are now dissatisfied that she failed to earn the Democratic presidential nomination, shouldn’t you have the access to hear what Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney, has to say?
For the conservatives out there who wish to redefine American conservatism and disassociate themselves with current Republican politics, you might be interested in what Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, has to say.
Ralph Nader. Some find him to be obnoxious and a complete weirdo but his consumer advocacy expertise could be beneficial to hear during this time of economic uncertainty.
Historically, the United States has a long tradition of discriminating against third-party candidates, according to Bob Miller, professor of a course titled mass media and presidential politics.
So what does it take to get invited to a Commission on Presidential Debates debate? Firstly, let me provide some information on the commission. It’s co-chairs, Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul G. Kirk, Jr., are former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively.
Each election cycle a list of corporate sponsors get together to fund the event, including the Anheuser-Busch Companies, The Howard G. Buffet Foundation (a private foundation that primarily supports humanitarian activities), and BBH New York, the official advertising agency for the City of New York, according to BBH’s Web site.
While it cannot substantially be proven that there is a conflict of interest, presumably having corporate sponsors providing funds to a forum for presidential debates is conspicuous. The fact that the co-chairs of the commission were former heads of the two most powerful political parties is suspicious.
In order to receive an invitation to a commission debate, the candidate must “qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2008 general election,” according to the Commission on Presidential Debates’ Web site. In other words, the candidate must have a legitimate chance to win 270 electoral votes.
Ralph Nader for example, is on the ballot in 45 states including California, Ohio, New York and Florida. The biggest state Nader failed to make the ballot is Texas. Shouldn’t 45 states be enough to earn 270 electoral votes?
Another must for candidates is to “have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.”
What the hell is that suppose to mean? Maybe if the mainstream media, which regularly reflect the opinions of the publisher or management, cover the other candidates they would have a shot of meeting that ludicrous “15 percent” requirement. Besides, some things a candidate’s campaign can control, like getting on the ballot in states, but poll numbers? How can a candidate control those?
“While precedents exist for credible third party candidates to win a place at the table, the Commission on Presidential Debates errs on the side of caution, excluding who they consider fringe candidates,” Miller said.
I’m not advocating voting for Nader or any of these other candidates, I’m advocating for all voices to be heard. Some may say that if all candidates were allowed to participate in the debate, it would turn into a riotous event.
I find that to be an apathetic and apologetic argument.
“The argument being if you allow one of them in, it would create an unmanageable event,” Miller said. “I know, who ever said democracy was supposed to neat and tidy? [One] might recall some of the primary debates this season that had multiple candidates. So the argument is nebulous.”
Be the first to comment on this article!