Recently, Vice-President Al Gore and Texas governor George W. Bush agreed on a schedule for holding the presidential debates. This was undoubtedly a relief for many, since Bush was initially unwilling to accept the proposed schedule of three 90-minute presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate, preferring instead to have two 60-minute television appearances with Gore. However, the two candidates agreed in a meeting on Thursday to follow the traditional method as proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). William Daley, Gore's campaign manager, called this development "a victory for the American people." But was it really, when Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan will not be allowed to debate and bring up important issues? I'm not so sure.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (http://www.debates.org), although officially non-partisan, is in fact a bi-partisan committee composed entirely of Democrats and Republicans, headed by former party chairmen. It is sponsored by a number of corporations such as AT&T, Sun Microsystems, and Anheuser-Busch, many of which donate to the campaigns of both major presidential candidates. The CPD, which determines which presidential candidates can be included in the debates, has established criteria that require candidates to poll an average of 15% in five major polls in order to be eligible. However, since third-party candidates generally do not get the media attention afforded to candidates of the major parties, this requirement effectively creates a large barrier for any third-party candidate wishing to enter the debate. While the exclusion of all third-party candidates may serve the interests of the members and sponsors of the CPD, it does not reflect the will of the public. In a July Fox News poll, 64% of those polls stated that they thought that Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan should be included in the debates, and 73% thought that including them would make the debates more interesting. Recent history would support the contention that allowing third party candidates to debate increases voter turn-out and interest in the debates, causing all candidates to enjoy a larger audience. In 1992, a record 90 million persons were estimated to have watched the debates, while only 41 million people watched the '96 debates. One contributing factor to the discrepancy may well have been Ross Perot's having been allowed to participate in the 1992 debates but not the 1996 debates. Perot also received 19% of the vote in 1992 but only 9% in 1996, attributing this partially to his participation in the 1992 debates. This year is also the first year in which the CPD used the 15% figure, although previous criteria for third-party candidates were subjective.
By participating in the debates, Nader and Buchanan would also provoke discussion on many issues on which Bush and Gore are in agreement, but these issues will obviously not be discussed in a two-person debate. To give a few examples, Bush and Gore both support the expansion of laws protecting "free trade," the death penalty, giving military aid to Colombia in the name of fighting the war on drugs, and creating a missile defense system. Nader and Buchanan are likely to have differing positions on these issues, however. Allowing them to debate would therefore give the public the opportunity that they should have to hear differing views on these issues and become more familiar with the Presidential candidates who will be listed on the ballot. Gore and Bush disagree on some issues, such as abortion, privatization of social security, and prescription drugs, but a two-way debate will be much narrower in scope than a four-way debate would be.
For these reasons, I find it unfortunate for most of us that the Committee on Presidential Debates has chosen to ignore the will of the American public and exclude Nader and Buchanan from the debates. I can only hope that, in the future, we will be able to get real debate into the public arena, rather than "debate" that starts with the Democratic Leadership Council's positions and moves rightward from there.