Just two months ago, which seems to be an eternity at this point, as Barack Obama was wrapping up the Democratic Primary season, presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, challenged Obama to a series of ten town-hall debates this fall. Obama was initially receptive with some sort of "we'll look into this" rhetoric; however, yesterday Obama backed away from the challenge. The Obama camp sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates stating his intention to participate in the three debates put on by the commission.
Now, who is this Commission on Presidential Debates? According to their website, they are a non-profit, non-partisan commission established to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners" leading up to the elections in November. There is a slight difference in the opening description on the Wikipedia entry for the CPD referring to them as bi-partisan rather than non-partisan. This is a fair assessment. The co-chairmen are Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul Kirk, Jr., who have served since its inception in 1987. These two just happened to also be the respective head of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee at the time. That's not exactly non-partisan - it's the precise embodiment of partisanship. Just as our elected leaders have fought tirelessly (together) to prevent third-party candidates from breaking the duopoly the Dems and GOP enjoy, the CPD has made it nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to have the voice heard in the "official" debates.
The criteria set forth by the CPD this year are as follows: the candidate must be constitutionally eligible, the candidate must have ballot access in enough states to represent an electoral college majority, and the candidate must have indicators of electoral support. What qualifies as an indicator of electoral support? The candidate must poll at a level of at least 15% across an average of five national presidential polls. This is a clear and obvious attempt to maintain the stranglehold of American politics by the established duopoly. These are the debates in which Obama has agreed to participate (technically, as any good politician would do, he hasn't ruled out other debates). Google/YouTube has planned a debate for September requiring "only" 10% polling levels in three national polls. It's not clear that Obama or McCain will be willing to participate in this event where Bob Barr and Ralph Nader each might have a snowball's chance of being invited.
The real problem that I see here is that the electorate does not even receive a reasonable chance of understanding the platform or issues that the third-party candidates represent. Even worse, we may be treated to only three head-to-head debates between the "major" party candidates in the run-up to the election. That's what brings me to American Idol. This past season ended with David Cook triumphant over David Archuleta. This was after the David's sparred for 14 weeks after the final 24 candidates were decided. The American Idol electorate had the benefit of choosing from many talented and qualified individuals and were treated to performances week after week as the field narrowed.
All too often, we hear both talking heads and everyday citizens offer that politics is becoming too much like American Idol. If not that, we hear that more people care about Idol than presidential politics. Let's check out a few comparisons... The 2004 presidential debates peaked with 62.5 million viewers for the first debate; the finale for Idol this year drew just over 31.5 million viewers. In terms of getting out the vote, the 2004 presidential election had just over 122 million voters; Idol's 2008 finale reportedly had over 97 million votes. Now, the good news is that there is a little more engagement for the presidential election than there is for Idol. But, it's not that far off (note: voting restrictions for Idol are not as stringent!) when you think about it. And frankly, I think the fact that the finalists have to stand up and perform for the public week after week might be a better model than we will be treated to this election season. Instead of actually hearing the candidates tell us what they think, we'll be subjected the constant spin from the mainstream media. Further, unless you really care, you'll probably only hear about the two finalists rather than being treated to the diverse and legitimate opinions of the many minor parties in American politics today.
2 comments:
Very true, but I don't think current presidential candidates should be responsible for ensuring a fair election process. As NFL coach Herm Edwards once said, "You play to win the game!" How can we blame McCain or Obama for simply playing by the rules of the unfair, bipartisan game we've established for electing presidents?
Although I think the introduction of a third-party candidate would have little impact on the eventual outcome, both candidates may have reason to be nervous. In particular, Obama has positioned himself as the candidate of "change," yet a Libertarian candidate would make a mockery of his idea of change (by offering significantly more). Obama could be expected to support such election reform once he's already been elected, but to do so as a candidate would be an unnecessary gamble at this point.
Theoretically, George W. Bush should be the one calling for such reform, but that is quite a laughable proposition to consider. Perhaps even Obama calling for such reform is unlikely, as the topic of election reform is not one of the 29 issues mentioned on his website. But like I said, it could be dangerous for him to bring up such a position at this point.
I agree with you completely. I did not mean to imply that the Obama or McCain should call for reform. In fact, I do not begrudge them at all for playing any political games for the sake of winning. Herm Edwards is right.
My point is that it shouldn't have to be that way. Yeah, you could argue that I'm being an idealist, but we should expect and demand more from the system. We need reform.
Post a Comment