The Daily Bruin Editorial Board assumes that you will be
sprinting to the polls Nov. 7.
Before you do, however, most of you will educate yourself before
that day by watching the presidential candidates tackle tough
issues in the nationally televised presidential elections. The
debates are vital to the voting process because of their
accessibility, mass appeal and public interaction; a 1992 poll
found the debates to be the biggest single factor used to determine
whom to support.
If you’re hoping to learn more about Ross Perot, however, that
strategy will fail, since the Commission on Presidential Debates
does not want him to participate. This puts him at a disadvantage
relative to the two-party candidates and severely limits his
chances of winning the election. The Commission on Presidential
Debates is making a big mistake by not allowing Perot to
participate in the debates.
Denying a candidate the right to speak in the debates makes it
impossible for him to succeed. Unfortunately, in the past (with the
exception of 1992), the debates have usually only showcased the
talents of the two major candidates. This leaves third party
candidates, who are still supported by a fair number of Americans,
out of the process.
The public continues to see the same two parties represented in
the debates, talking about many of the same issues year after year.
Those candidates who hold fresh ideas are not given the chance to
set foot in the political arena, where the public could reap the
benefits of change. The point of the debates should be to express
new strategies and views; it is only fair that the inventors of
these new ideas be allowed to gain the exposure made possible by
television. Without that, they cannot receive the support they may
very well deserve.
Still, even this argument does not alter the Commission’s
decision. The problem lies within the Commission’s criteria, which
is determined by 10 Commission members (five Republicans and five
Democrats).
As it stands, a nonpartisan candidate must have (1) evidence of
national organization, (2) signs of newsworthiness and (3)
indicators of national public enthusiasm or concern.
A major problem lies in the first criterion, which demands
evidence of national organization. National organization requires
funding, and for funds a candidate must either be eligible for
federal matching funds or show that he has the ability to fund a
national campaign on his own.
In 1992, Perot, as a billionaire, had plenty of money for
campaigning. In 1996, he made the decision to apply for federal
matching funds. Therefore, according to the Commission, he does not
meet the criteria for participation because he does not possess
enough money to fund a presidential campaign. This criteria needs
to be changed, because it fails to acknowledge Perot’s viable
candidacy, arising from his placement on the ballot in all 50
states, as well as the need for a broadened political dialogue.
Only in this way can the public be served.
First, the debates should not be limited to two, or even three,
candidates; if the American public is divided and favors five
candidates, then up to five candidates should be allowed to speak.
Any more would lead to a debate that no one would watch. The five
candidates would be chosen by two criteria. The first qualifier for
entry in the debates should be their theoretical ability to win the
election, as determined by their entry on the ballots in enough
states to win the electoral college. Second, the candidates should
demonstrate a minimum consistent approval rating in the polls six
weeks, four weeks and two weeks before the debates in order to
participate.
If the make up of the Commission was not limited to two party
members and if the criteria allowed for a better participation
rate, the nationally televised presidential debates would more
accurately reflect the candidates chosen by the American people.
Only a modification of these policies will give you, as a voter,
the opportunity to view candidates whose ideas may bring about
long-awaited and much-needed change.