DEBATE REFORM — by Publius V. Publicola
To the people of the United States of America and of the World,
As a beacon for democracy, the United States of America has an obligation to lead through example. Presidential elections are the pinnacle of the American election system. However, the entire process has failed, as discussed in previous papers on election, voting, and campaign finance reform, and has provided poor choices to citizens. The failure to provide substantive debates only furthers the problem. The three scheduled presidential debates do not provide us with a serious discussion of the issues, and yet they have the potential to address some of the biggest challenges that face our nation and the world. Given the gravity of the problems that need to be resolved, we need our candidates to identify, discuss, and propose solutions, to engage in greater in-depth discussion rather than spending just a few minutes on predetermined topics as currently proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Voters rely on the debates to help decide which candidate to support, and the presidential debates would be far more informative if there were ten of them, each one 90 to 120 minutes in length. Americans would then have the opportunity to hear in detail what candidates believe are the important problems facing our nation and how they would solve them.
The debates in their current form appear to be no more than a continuation of the campaign, focusing on sound bites that are used over again. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, Republican and Democrat operatives respectively, serve as the current co-chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates. There are three presidential debates scheduled: on September 26, 2016, at Hofstra University in New York; on October 9, 2016, at Washington University in Missouri; and on October 19, 2016, at the University of Nevada. The first and last debates propose a single moderator, with each debate consisting of six fifteen-minute segments. The second debate is to be held as a town hall meeting. The vice-presidential debate is to be held on October 4, 2016, at Longwood University in Virginia, and consists of nine segments, each lasting ten minutes. More information about the Commission on Presidential Debates and previous debates can be found at debates.org.
The problem with the current debate structure is that each segment is only given ten to fifteen minutes of airtime and is split between the candidates. This format creates the façade of a vigorous debate when in fact candidates need only rattle off their existing sound bites and regurgitate the same talking points that they made in their primary candidacies. The lack of a genuine debate is a disservice to all Americans now, and to those who have come before us, because the current structure has been manipulated by the existing two-party system to insulate their respective candidates. Additionally, the Commission on Presidential Debates has set unrealistic standards for inclusion of third-party candidates. They set the bar at a 15% support level of the voting public in the five most recent polls for a third party candidate to be invited to the debates. This is not an inclusive standard, but one that insulates the Democrat and Republican candidates.
The reason why the current Commission on Presidential Debates is a façade can be traced back to 1988. There were no public debates from 1964 to 1972, and the League of Women Voters served as sponsors of three presidential debates, in 1976, 1980, and 1984, but they withdrew their sponsorship on October 2, 1988. They did so because in 1987, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Republican National Committee (RNC) colluded in creating the current “bipartisanship” Commission on Presidential Debates to control the process and protect their respective candidates. Then-President of the League of Women Voters, Nancy M. Neuman, exposed how the terms and conditions of the debates were dictated and called the Commission a fraud because of it. In an effort to negotiate and control how the debates were to be run, Democrat and Republican campaigns dictated terms without input, with the hope of getting the seal of approval from the League of Women Voters. When the League of Women Voters ended their sponsorship in 1988, the Commission on Presidential Debates proceeded with debates as redesigned by the DNC and the RNC. Unfortunately for America, the DNC and RNC conspired to set the format and rules, not to encourage robust debates but to insulate their candidates.
The DNC and the RNC know that a presidential candidate faces three main risks after becoming the presumptive nominee. The first risk lies in picking the vice-presidential running mate. The selection of an unvetted running mate can open the top of the ticket to unnecessary scrutiny. The second risk revolves around the convention. Having a disorganized or unruly convention, or one that is contested, replete with mistakes, or lacking unity has the potential to alienate desperately needed base supporters for the general election. The last risk to the candidates comes at the debates. A poor debate performance on prime-time television can sway undecided and independent voters. The current debate system protects, insulates, and coddles the presidential candidates as much as possible. The segments or topics to be discussed are known in advance and the candidates often repeat the sound bites they gave during the parties’ primary debates. This aversion to risk does not lend itself to spending the time necessary to delve into the segments or topics; rather, it provides no more than a general overview, and certainly does not give voters enough specific information to allow them to differentiate between what each candidate would do if elected.
What voters need and deserve is ten debates for the presidential candidates (one each week from the end of August through Election Day, and three to five debates for the vice-presidential candidates during the same time frame). There should be three debates with a sole-moderator format, three with a panelist/moderator format, and four in a town hall setting. Both the sole moderator format and the panelist format should be substantively driven, and push candidates to present detailed solutions and to defend them. Both formats should be dedicated to two on domestic economic issues, two on domestic social issues, and two on international issues. The town hall settings, which are unscripted and keep the candidates on their toes, should consist of two conducted in person, and two done online or through Internet and social media outlets. Finally, with battleground states getting inundated with advertising and disproportionate attention, and with Washington, D. C. and many politicians geographically removed from mainstream America, the debates should be spread out geographically, not just across battleground states, but reaching all corners of the country. If Republicans can hold twelve debates in the 2016 primary, then ten for the general election is both reasonable and warranted.
The Presidential Commission on Debates should lower the inclusion of third-party candidates from those that poll at 15%, to those that poll at 5%. Fifteen percent of approximately 126 million of those that voted in the 2012 election is 18.9 million, whereas lowering the threshold to 5% would be 6.3 million. A potential candidate who has earned the support of 6.3 million people is a viable candidate — one who would add to a spirited debate, provide potential new solutions to the problems we face, and break the duopoly of the current system. Lastly, disrupting the status quo of the debates would require either dissolving the Commission on Presidential Debates, or having it jointly run by credible third-party organizations, such as was the case when the League of Women Voters took on that responsibility before the DNC and RNC created the current system. Given the current dissatisfaction of voters with both political parties and with government officials at all levels, the voters and American citizens have had enough of the corrupt and rigged systems that protect the current dysfunctional two-party system.
Your Call to Action
Very few times in mankind’s history have individuals had the opportunity to take control not just of their own destiny, but also the destiny of their own country and all of humanity. To instill a new ethos into the civic consciousness, you, as an adult who has obtained the fundamental right to vote from the sacrifices of our forefathers, are granted the unique opportunity to change the current political system and climate at the federal level every two years. If after reading the inaugural edition of The United Papers or the subsequent papers, whether your heart or your mind has inspired and compelled you to Your Call to Action, you can do your part to fulfill America’s and humanity’s destiny by making a commitment to this change for eight years, to ensure four congressional elections, two presidential elections, and the senatorial election cycles in your state. Your duty requires both your time and personal effort to perform concrete actions to further the change needed, and when asked and if financially feasible, to make a financial commitment. These efforts are needed to bring pertinent issues to the forefront, and to establish the groundwork to change the status quo and consider an independent third party: a party with socially progressive policies that can adapt to our country’s changing demographics; a party that recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility to address the burden of our national debt while maintaining current and future social programs; a party that understands fiscal responsibility to manage both short and long-term needs in health and welfare programs, education, national security, and many other areas; in sum, a party that keeps the United States of America as the torch bearer and global leader for modern democracy, for which so many American citizens here and around the globe have sacrificed their life in the years leading up to these crossroads.
At this moment your country needs you to answer your call to action. Only you can decide if you are content with the status quo, or if you will rise up as America’s forefathers did when they recognized their duty to declare independence and form our great nation. Your duty, and your call to action is to share these, The United Papers, with your family, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, and neighbors to ensure that our country can begin to come together, to get back to being productive, to lead the world forward, and to make America united again. Your call to action is also to visit www.tendebates.com and to sign an online petition when one becomes available and posted in order to give debate reform the attention is desperately needs.
A Friend of the People,
Publius V. Publicola
www.facebook.com/TheUnitedPapers
www.twitter.com/TheUnitedPapers @TheUnitedPapers #TheUnitedPapers #10Debates
