what america needs

May 26, 2004 12:42 AM

open debates is a nonprofit that's working to reform the presidential debate process for the american election. they have some pretty big names on their board from across the political spectrum, including john b. anderson, angela "bay" buchanan, and randall robinson.

From the website:
Currently, the presidential debates are secretly controlled by the major parties, through the private bipartisan corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates, resulting in the stultification of format, the exclusion of popular candidates, and the avoidance of pressing national issues.
The major party candidates never pay a political price for their antidemocratic practices; posing as an independent sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates shields the major party candidates from public criticism and public accountability.
posted by christy (9 comments total)

15% Poll Support gets you in to the debates.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:03 AM on May 26, 2004

Being on the ballot in the vast majority of states (no mean feat) should get you into a legitimate debate. The proudest vote I ever cast in a presidential race was AGAINST Jimmy Carter for blackballing John Anderson and the roar of support that Ted Turner got (when he he used creative editing to re-insert Anderson back into the version of the debate he televised) shows I was not alone.

But admission into the debate is only ONE aspect. Having a sham committee control the content to ensure that only fluffy non-threatening questions are asked is another very real concern. We're treated to an endless stream of Simpsonesque: "Your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. What makes you so popular?"
posted by RavinDave at 2:03 AM on May 26, 2004

me are all homer.
posted by quonsar at 3:41 AM on May 26, 2004

I think that this issue isn't goig to get much traction this year. (At least with me.) Right now, the country will not benefit from distracting attention from the two candidates that are the country's actual choices.
posted by goethean at 9:07 AM on May 26, 2004

Right now, the country will not benefit from distracting attention from the two candidates that are the country's actual choices.

Is that all this thread is about? I would say this is about focussing attention on the US's two candidates by working to ensure that they are actually asked some questions which might cause them to have to say something remotely meaningful.
posted by biffa at 9:45 AM on May 26, 2004

was AGAINST Jimmy Carter for blackballing John Anderson

this is an amazing way to rationalize one's vote for... Reagan?
;)
posted by matteo at 10:11 AM on May 26, 2004

i think biffa hit the nail on the head. i don't care so much about someone like nader getting into the debate. the problem is that the debates we are going to see are actually glorified press conferences that don't make the candidates answer any of the hard questions. this is about forcing the two main candidates to actually *gasp* answer some questions they weren't given beforehand and that don't have an answer all in platitudes.

(heh: spell check suggests invader for nader.... how true)
posted by christy at 10:55 AM on May 26, 2004

The debates have become stupid, a waste of time.

They're not a chance to win any votes, or to convince anyone of anything, or seriously discuss any issue. They're simply a chance to screw up, and candidates "win" by not screwing up, with "winning" meaning only "status quo preserved."

I'd like the following questions to be asked in the debate, but I know there's no hope:

"Pres. Bush, you say you're conservative, but you've supported huge increases in discretionary domestic spending, abandoned school choice, and your social conservativism is simply talk -- what gives?"

"Sen. Kerry, you say you're moderate, but your voting record puts you to the left of Ted Kennedy. You'd be the most left-wing President in American history, and a clear rebuke to the Clinton/Gore movement in your party -- why should the American people want that?"
posted by MattD at 11:49 AM on May 26, 2004

With your current election system, there will pretty much always be two major candidates. If you want alternatives, change the way you vote.
posted by lazy-ville at 2:39 PM on May 26, 2004