Third-party candidates deserve television time

By Kirsten Isaacson

Let’s talk TV, a.k.a. America’s favorite pastime. On
a wild hunch, let me presume that last Tuesday many of us plopped
down on our grungy sofas and extended our arms just far enough to
aim the remote. I will propose two different results of our
exercise in button clicking:

1) Watching millionaire hopefuls field questions from Regis
Philbin or

2) Watching two political millionaires field questions from Jim
Lehrer.

Which option shall we guess ranks up there with Jerry Springer
in terms of attracting the most viewers?

For whatever reason, it seems as though public interest and
involvement in American politics is frighteningly low. Gore and
Bush boast separate platforms, yet in reality seem to be the same
package dressed in different wrapping. Thus, it is no surprise that
last week’s presidential debate had little impact on
voters’ decisions, little impact on TV viewing habits, and
bore no resemblance to the working of a democratic system.

But let us suppose for an instant that watching a presidential
debate on television could be as exhilarating as watching WWF
SmackDown!

In 1992, when Ross Perot was allowed to participate in the
debates, 90 million viewers tuned in. Four years later in 1996,
when a third-party candidate was not allowed, an average of 41
million viewers watched. Voter turnout also significantly declined.
So in an effort to increase TV ratings, voter interest, and voter
turnout, why are third-party presidential candidates not permitted
to participate in the debates?

The Commission on Presidential Debates is responsible for
organizing the debates. CNN calls the commission a
“nonpartisan commission,” although CNN seems to be
confusing nonpartisan with bipartisan.

In 1987, the Democratic and Republican parties took control of
the commission from the truly nonpartisan League of Women Voters.
But the commission is now run by a pair of men representing each
mainstream party. Its co-chairs are Paul Kirk, former chairman of
the Democratic Party; and Frank Fahrenkopf, the current Republican
Party chairman.

Considering the elephant-donkey duo controlling the Commission
on Presidential Debates, it is no wonder that third-party
candidates are forbidden to participate in the debates.

With over 200 presidential candidates, surely one must use
discretion in determining debate participants. But is the
commission’s policy unjust?

In order to partake in the debates, a candidate must be
considered a viable competitor (as stipulated by an average of 15
percent support in five national opinion polls). This percentage is
triple the amount the federal government uses to qualify candidates
for matching funds. In addition, this policy was recently adopted
in response to the growing viability of third-party candidates.

In 1992, Ross Perot went into the debates with 5-6 percent
ratings in the polls; he won 19 percent of the votes. Jesse Ventura
debated with only 10 percent support and went on to win with 37
percent of the votes. Following the beautifully democratic
Minnesota upset, the commission created the 15 percent policy to
ensure third-party exclusion and Republican and Democratic
dominance.

The very structure of the Commission on Presidential Debates
must be recognized as a truly partisan body that unfairly rules out
non-mainstream candidates. The inclusion of candidates such as the
Green Party’s Ralph Nader would not only add some excitement
to the debates and promote voter interest, but also would inject
some authenticity into a stale event where candidates have become
accustomed to giving general gloss-overs.

I want to sit down to a true debate, a competition, an exchange
of sly quips and facts that promote thought and challenge the
mediocre. How do we obtain this?

Open the debates; promote a real democracy.