by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman October 13, 2003 Is it viable for the United States to provide health coverage to every person in its borders? Could the economy transition quickly from fossil-fuel addiction to reliance on solar energy and other renewables? Of course. As the presidential campaign heats up in 2004, will we hear about such challenges to the interests of the corporate goliaths? That depends. In part it depends on the structure of the presidential debates. Right now, those debates are managed by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which is controlled by the Republican and Democratic Parties, and funded by major corporate donations. It's co-chairs are Frank Fahrenkopf, chair of the Republican Party, and Paul Kirk, chair of the Democratic Party. Thus, when it comes to presidential debates -- guess what? -- alternative views are routinely blocked out. But this year there is hope. A new, truly nonpartisan organization, Open Debates (www.opendebates.org) has been formed... ...When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, things were a bit different. "One of the big differences between us and the commission was that the commission could easily raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions," Nancy Neuman, former president of the League of Women Voters told Open Debates. "They did it very quickly in 1988. Even though I would go to some corporations, I would be lucky to get $5,000. Why? Because under the commission's sponsorship, this is another soft-money deal. It is a way to show your support for the parties because, of course, it is a bipartisan commission and a bipartisan contribution. There was nothing in it for corporations when they made a contribution to the League. Not a quid pro quo. That's not the case with the commission." Next year promises to be a hot election year, a year of change and hope for a better world. Fulfilling the promise will require bypassing the CPD and creating a citizens' debate commission not controlled by corporate interests. Keep hope alive. Check out www.opendebates.org
Re: Re: Open The Debates... Hey, fishy, why don't you stop wasting valuable server space with non-responsive drivel? What are your thoughts on the CPD and alternatives to the CPD?
Re: Re: Re: Open The Debates... Actually, I'm up for opening the debates up a little. they always have bothered me;too stiff and scripted. But seriously dude, 5 threads a day is a bit excessive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Open The Debates... I think he has subscribed to the "if you throw enough radical shit against the wall, some will eventually stick" school of thought....
The debates should be opened up to all the parties that have a mathematical chance of winning the electoral college. IIRC, if that standard had been applied to the 2000 debates it would have featured the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Reform, and Constitution parties (and I think Natural-Law as well). Those 6-7 parties on stage would have exposed the public to a wide range of views that might have led to increased voter participation (since "lack of a choice" is a common answer as to why people don't vote).
So let me get this straight you actually believe that the Libertarian, Green, Reform, and Constitution parties had a chance to win the electoral college????? That's the funniest thing I have ever heard. Excuse while I go to the hospital to get my side stitched up.
Mel's positions are a bit extreme, but I'm very happy he's here. The issues he champions are worthy of discussion.
Did they have chance to win the EC? Probably not, since they weren't given a voice in the debates. Were they on enough state ballots to mathematically win the EC? Yes. If you're on enough state ballots to potentially get 270 electoral votes, you should be allowed in the debates.
Ok, I can buy that. The way it sounded was that you felt they could win just by being in the debates.
And you've contributed to the discussion of ideas in this thread, how, exactly? The answer: typically; that is to say, not at all.
Slam dunk. Exactly. If you can get on the ballot in enough states to (theoretically) win the election, then the debate should include you, particularly in "the greatest democracy in the world." But don't forget the ongoing struggle to get on the ballot in certain states; third-party and independent candidates have a much tougher time of it. States may require a potential candidate get a large number of voter signatures, pay steep filing fees, and follow lots of complicated procedures before he or she can get on the ballot, legitimizing the two-party system, something (political parties) never codified in the Constitution (on purpose, btw...).
Yep, I agree there are some significant hurdles to get on the ballot in some states. There is a good online newsletter written by Richard Winger that deals with news on ballot access at http://www.ballot-access.org/ Also, while not related to presidential elections, Rep. Ron Paul introduced a bill, HR 1941, that would force states that have strict ballot access laws for House races to lower the threshold for candidates to get on the ballot to 1,000 petition signatures (states that have laws that are less strict than what the bill proposes would be exempted).