For those of you who weren't aware (I wasn't until a few days ago), the televised presidential debates that we are about to watch, are controlled by an organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates. ( www.debate.org ) According to their website:

Quote :

"The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004."

Now, at first blush, this doesn't seem like too bad of an organization. I mean who can be opposed to a bipartisan organization whose purpose is to encourage candidates to appear in public forums in front of the general public? Right. Then you read about the genesis of the organization:

Quote :

"In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter". During the 2000 election, the CPD stipulated that candidates would only be invited to debate if they had a 15 percent support level across five national polls. Ralph Nader, a presidential candidate who was not allowed to debate because of this rule, believed that the regulation was created to stifle the views of third party candidates by keeping them off the televised debates. Nader brought a lawsuit against them in a federal court, on that basis that corporate contributions violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 2004, the CPD faced harsh criticism of their debate structure and technique. Citing the CPD's 32 page debate contract, citizen groups and Connie Rice of NPR called the CPD debates "news conferences," and "a reckless endangerment of democracy."[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Yes I just quoted Wikipedia, it was the most concise summation of the information from the following websites:
http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/
http://www.debatethis.org/


Anyway, to continue my rambling screed . . . Has anyone else done research on the CPD or have any experience with them? I, for one, have a problem with public discourse being dominated by what is effectively a cartel between the two major parties through a 501(c)(3) corporation which is not required to disclose its funding under FEC rules.

9/11/2008 8:52:37 PM

501C, like the Swift Boat fucks?

9/11/2008 8:56:13 PM

i say give the 3rd party a fair shot. but ralph nader? nah, you won't hear any complaining from my corner about this.

9/11/2008 8:56:14 PM

why not? Part of the reason he appears crazy is because he might be, but the other part is that we've gotten so used to a packaged debate that we don't know what to make of someone who actually contests the issues. I think Ron Paul did a pretty good job of this in the primary, and quite frankly we need more of it.

But equally as disturbing as picking who may participate is picking who the moderators are and who asks questions. God, I sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but a two party system which controls who may participate in debates at the national level is really only one party away from a communist like system.

9/11/2008 9:01:11 PM

If people here don't know my stance on the two-party system, then they either forgot or haven't been paying attention.

Partisan politics are going to destroy America someday if they are not stopped.


While I understand that they have to maintain some numerical standard to keep random people from claiming legitimate cause to be a debater, 15% is too restrictive. IMO they should either lower that number or just add a clause that candidates from major third parties (Libertarian, Green possibly) should be included. There are a ton of points against the current system that could be made by most any third party candidate, and I think they should be allowed to make them. At least, they should if the CPD is truly a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization as it so claims.

9/11/2008 9:04:12 PM

Not like the swift boat guys. They were a 527, 501c3 is a non profit.

These guys happen to be funded all by corporate funding but because of their non-profit status, they do not have to report who funds them.

I didn't know these guys existed tip JCASHFAN told me a little bit ago.

9/11/2008 9:04:34 PM

Quote :

"i say give the 3rd party a fair shot. but ralph nader? nah, you won't hear any complaining from my corner about this."

hypocrite

9/11/2008 9:05:40 PM

don't ever expect a 3rd party candidate to be taken seriously as a presidential contender until that same party has made ground in the house and senate or even amongst the supreme court.

sorry, but they need to grow gradually, and if it really becomes a popular way of life, it will happen one day.

don't expect us to take them seriously at this point. start small and let it grow

9/11/2008 9:05:51 PM

How do you propose they grow when the current system institutionalizes the two major parties? The Supreme Court? You have got to be kidding me. You do realize that a) judicial appointees are technically non-partisan and that b) they are nominated by the President (a member of the two dominant parties) and that c) they are confirmed by the House and Senate (controlled by the two dominant parties). The fact is that debates are often the only occasion that cash-strapped minor candidates can get face time.

But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to.

9/11/2008 9:11:29 PM

^

9/11/2008 9:12:19 PM

Quote :

"sorry, but they need to grow gradually, and if it really becomes a popular way of life, it will happen one day. don't expect us to take them seriously at this point. start small and let it grow"

This sounds like some of the arguments against civil rights.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 9:13 PM. Reason : ]

9/11/2008 9:13:30 PM

YEH NOW IM A RACIST, GOOD ARGUMENT GUIZ!!!111

9/11/2008 9:23:10 PM

civil rights are about more than just race guy.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 9:24 PM. Reason : 6969!]

9/11/2008 9:24:00 PM

pwned.

ok you got me. let's let in ralph nader. in fact, throw in oprah winfrey and hillary clinton. hell hillary clinton and oprah winfrey easily control %60 of the females of the nation. amirite!!111???

9/11/2008 9:25:43 PM

^^^ I didn't say you are racist; I said that your argument sounds similar to other non-progressive arguments made in the past.

JCASHFAN had a legitimate response to 'start small and let it grow'. Do you have a reasonable answer, or are you going to continue to spew shit?

9/11/2008 9:28:57 PM

don't ever expect a 3rd party candidate to be taken seriously as a presidential contender until that same party has made ground in the house and senate

9/11/2008 9:30:09 PM

Quote :

"But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to."

9/11/2008 9:32:50 PM

Quote :

"don't ever expect a 3rd party candidate to be taken seriously as a presidential contender until that same party has made ground in the house and senate"

Does this possibly indicate a major flaw in our current highly-restrictive election system?

Fuck yes it does.

9/11/2008 9:35:18 PM

go get 45 million people to agree with you and all that will change mr.


apparently math isn't taught at ncsu anymore

9/11/2008 9:39:42 PM

Quote :

"But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to."

9/11/2008 9:40:52 PM

Quote :

"civil rights are about more than just race guy."

Quote :

"civil rights are about more than just race guy."

Quote :

"civil rights are about more than just race guy."

Quote :

"civil rights are about more than just race guy."

9/11/2008 9:41:41 PM

Quote :

""But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to.""

Quote :

""But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to.""

Quote :

""But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to.""

Quote :

""But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to.""

Quote :

""But that still does not address the issue that, even if you leave a 15% threshold for potential third party candidates, the two major parties hare hand-picking moderators that will, in effect, throw them softball questions which they have pre-packaged answers to.""

9/11/2008 9:43:57 PM

oops, that was fun!

i mean. don't watch it.

just write your vote in for who you want and make up your own damn mind.

9/11/2008 9:44:43 PM

^^He wants you to address that question/issue, not repeat it in multiple quote boxes.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ^]

9/11/2008 9:45:13 PM

A++ thread. would read again.

ibtl

9/11/2008 9:51:00 PM

So you're going to come in, refuse to address valid points made against your argument, then shit all over the thread with quote boxes in the hope that it gets locked?

GTFO TSB.

As for the rest of us, let's resume the discussion while completely ignoring this fruitbat.

9/11/2008 9:54:17 PM

calling somebody a fruitbat, now that's a first

9/11/2008 9:56:06 PM

Quote :

"As for the rest of us, let's resume the discussion while completely ignoring this fruitbat."

Agreed....


Wouldn't it be fair allow people into debates similarly to allowing candidates on the ballot. ie, if you get enough signatures, you're allowed on the ballot. Something could be done like that for debates. Organize enough people to write letters, or sign a petition to allow participation in a debate. It might be a little bit of a logistical nightmare, but it's feasible.

9/12/2008 9:37:24 AM

It wouldn't be that hard - just take all candidates who have completed filing in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of winning the EC vote - regardless of the wild improbability of this outcome.

This leaves you with maybe 5 candidates in the debate tops - the R and D, Libertarian, Green, and maybe some other third party (Constitution Party, an independent, whatever).

9/12/2008 12:05:59 PM

the OP just shows how 3rd parties really don't have a chance

9/12/2008 12:08:54 PM

^^That's actually a pretty sound method. It might be a bit more annoying to whoever has to calculate eligibility, but it's a fair system and does well to balance inclusion of legitimate candidates with exclusion of non-candidates.

9/12/2008 12:17:30 PM

They only exist to prevent dangerous things like informed discourse and honest debate. Nothing wrong with that.

I, for one, prefer 30 second soundbytes to answers from my presidential nominees.

9/12/2008 12:22:55 PM

So the real question is, how do we go about implementing this? Politicians aren't going to answer questions they don't want asked, the CPD has every right to exist, and - while you could set up another debate commission - who says they'd show up? The TV networks are going to follow the politics and aren't going to ask hard questions when their advertisers are the same ones who fund the CPD.

9/12/2008 6:41:50 PM

Feel a little trapped in the hamster wheel, eh?

9/12/2008 7:04:46 PM

The Commission on Presidential Debates has served us quite well. They allow for a true discussion of the topics without muddling the action with fringe candidates who serve no purpose but to get less than 1% of the vote. I was mad at the CPD back in 2004 when they wouldn't allow Nader to debate, but I later came to the conclusion that a percentage threshold is actually good for the public discourse. If you do not have that threshold, where do you draw the line? With the Common Law party, which is only on the ballot in a few states? The Natural Rights party which suffers the same problem? What about the Prohibition party?

It does its job good.

9/12/2008 10:00:20 PM

The above criteria I specified would allow "serious" outsider contenders in while screening out every unserious yahoo.

Besides, I'm sure the existing format has worked so well - who doesn't like a political informatial where the candidates pre-approve the list of softball questions and every last detail down to the lighting and stage setup?

I almost expect the next words you type to be, "I love Big Brother!"

9/12/2008 10:10:47 PM

i mean, why let someone in who doesn't get a certain percentage when the system is set up to prevent them from getting that percentage in the first place? makes sense to me, mang.

9/12/2008 10:12:32 PM

Because it's a stupid and collusive criterion which is manifestly unfair? Because other options exist on the table to fill the stated goal of this criterion which are not so unfair?

But hey - what the fuck do we all care about peoples' voices getting heard - so long as "your" guy is protected from dangerous questions, right? That's what democracy is all about, right? Protecting your faction.

9/12/2008 10:17:27 PM

keep reading, dude. i'm agreeing w/ you...

9/12/2008 10:18:44 PM

Okay, I read what you said wrong. My statement still applies to others, however.

9/12/2008 10:20:55 PM

Just read the whole thread.

Unbelievable stuff. I thought the US was a democracy and a free country? It is actually a duocracy.

Oh and, csharp_live got pwnt so hard in here, it was pathetic.

9/23/2008 8:41:59 PM

Quote :

"duocracy"

gg

9/23/2008 11:05:08 PM

Quote :

" I thought the US was a democracy and a free country?"

I can't figure out why Americans hate freedom so much. I mean, on any given issue, you can boil it down to roughly 50% of the population thinking that it's a bad idea to allow that particular freedom.

I've always thought that the overall message of libertarianism should sell itself quite effectively, but here in the supposedly most free country in the world, we actively look for ways to to give freedoms away. I feel that we've gone from an attitude of "do we ABSOLUTELY have to have any restriction on this freedom" to "people don't really NEED to be allowed to do that."

9/23/2008 11:14:28 PM

^Too many people in the world have the idea in their heads that THEIR morals must also apply to everyone else's, and despite anything in the Constitution or common sense, they make it their political mission (be it as a voter or as a politician) to impose their self-righteous views of the world on the freedoms of others.

Then there are others who see policies that would be hugely beneficial to society at large so long as people man-up and take responsibility for themselves on an individual basis... but, instead of deciding to better themselves and their country, they'd rather continue a lifestyle that is not only detrimental to their own successes but detrimental to society at large... many even have kids and pass on these failures to a new generation.

Really the whole problem just boils down to idiocy. Idiots are destroying society at large, their idiocy is spreading through mass-media outlets such as television and the Internet, and there's no way to stop these idiots from living and breeding and interacting with the world without taking insanely immoral/unethical/impractical/inhumane actions. And even though these idiots might not be a majority yet, they are among the most vocal members of society (because reasonable people know how to stay calm and when to keep their mouth shut... but unfortunately such things are not sensationalist and thus do not get ratings/pageviews/attention).


Certainly, idiots have been around throughout American and human history, and America and mankind have still made progress, so why are we just now seeing such horrible effects?

To me the most likely culprit is the media... it is no longer serving its proper function with regards to government (that of a watchdog and whistleblower). Someone, somewhere, in some news network that had just been bought out by a major broadcasting corporation, found out that sensationalism and drama get FAR more viewers than muckraking and investigative reports. Now, you might argue that this is largely the fault of the people for watching such tripe and bullshit, but I don't think it is. For years Americans were used to equating "news" with "truth", and once television and/or radios began tossing out opinions, celebrity worship, and biased/sensationalist reporting, it was absorbed by the populace as something they should believe, because that's what news had been to them in the past. The networks told the people what they wanted to hear, and people loved them for it because for so many years they had instead been getting raw facts and information. Now it's just the culture of America, and you have to dig deeper and do more fact checking to stay accurately informed of events. Unfortunately, that's more time and effort than the average working American is willing to take out of their day.

In conclusion, there is probably no solution. Like all great world superpowers it will one day runs its course and destroy itself, or simply dissolve into mediocrity as most once-great countries tend to do in this modern age.

I'm going to move to Australia if I my life ever reaches a point where I have the clear and practical opportunity to do so.

9/23/2008 11:40:39 PM

Quote :

"But equally as disturbing as picking who may participate is picking who the moderators are and who asks questions. God, I sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but a two party system which controls who may participate in debates at the national level is really only one party away from a communist like system."

You'd have to tread carefully, because even at this level, the tyranny of choice would still come in to play, and that could work out worse:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bschwar1/Sci.Amer.pdf

9/24/2008 1:54:44 AM

I read the article, and it was an interesting one, but I hardly think a third or a fourth or a fifth party would result in tyranny of choice. Not to mention, the articles implication was that the effects of TOC were primarily felt by maximizers. So I fail to see how a little more competetion would cause our system to crumble.

9/24/2008 6:35:32 PM