Commission on Presidential debates

[HailBlazers]

Watching the debate the other night I was intrigued when Jim Lehrer said it was presented by the Commission on Presidential debates. Hmmm, who is this commission, and could they be responsible for the quality ( or lack thereof ) of the debates for the most powerful position in the free world ?

The question left my mind until I saw a presentation on CSPAN last weekend, a re-broadcast of the 1984 Bush-Ferraro Vice-Presidential Debate. Now that was a debate. Tough questions, a broad range of journalist asking them, and no time-limits. The debate was so good, it prompted me to do some research.

One thing I came across, must watch:

The Commission on Presidential debates sounds like a government agency, it sounds like a nonpartisan entity, which is by design, is intended to deceive the American people. But, in reality, it is a private corporation financed by Anheuser-Busch and other major companies, that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties to seize control of the presidential debates from The League of Women Voters in 1987. Precisely as you said, Amy, every four years, this commission allows the major party campaigns to meet behind closed doors and draft a secret contract, a memorandum of understanding that dictates many of the terms. The reason for the commission’s creation is that the previous sponsor, The League of Women voters, was a genuine non-partisan entity, our voice, the voice of the American people in the negotiation room, and time and time again, The League had the courage to stand up to the Republican and Democratic campaigns to insist on challenging creative formats, to insist on the inclusion of independent candidates that the vast majority of American people wanted to see, and most importantly, to insist on transparency, so that any attempts by the Republican and Democratic parties to manipulate the presidential debates would result in and of enormous political price.

Discuss.

 

[Denny Crane]

You let the big secret out of the bag. That it's funded by major corporations.

 

[HailBlazers]

Not the point. Are you satisfied with the quality of the debates?

 

[BrianFromWA]

it would make more sense to me if Perot/Stockdale had been frozen out in 1992. Isn't debate attendance based on primary voting? To my knowledge, anyone who gets 10% or more of the popular vote can be in the national debates, regardless of their standing in the two parties.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd love to see more 3rd party candidates get a voice, but I can also see that the logistics for having a televised debate with dozens of candidates would be messy at best. The republican primary debates this year worked, perhaps, because there were a lot of debates. On the other hand, each candidate got so little time to speak, you never really got the sense of who they were (you had to trust SNL for that).

 

[Haakzilla]

You let the big secret out of the bag. That it's funded by major corporations.

...no secret there -- status quo

 

[HailBlazers]

Isn't debate attendance based on primary voting? To my knowledge, anyone who gets 10% or more of the popular vote can be in the national debates, regardless of their standing in the two parties.

They raised it to 15%.

There has not been a third-party candidate in the last 100 years that’s gotten close to 15% in the polls prior to any sort of presidential debate, it’s ridiculously high. Congress gives candidates millions of dollars of taxpayer funds if they win 5% of the popular vote. How is it that we actually can we subsidize a candidate, yet they need three times that level of support just to get into these presidential debates?

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe they should ease the requirements to "is on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college."

That would get the Libertarian Party candidate, the Green Party candidate, the independent party candidates (Perot then Buchanan), and the occasional other 3rd party candidate into the debates.

 

[RR7]

I'd like to see a shift where the big issue afterwards wasn't who "won" or "lost" as is the case nowadays. A debate naturally leadds that way, as a debate seems to imply that someone will win and lose. I think both candidates getting their information out there on topics, and having a back and forth would be more beneficial as a whole to the voting block than to have the main coverage afterwards be that, for example,Romney won because Obama stammered and didn't seem like a great public speaker. Stammering causes one to "lose". That seems dumb to me. Nixon sweating against kennedy made him "lose" a debate.
I'm not at all saying Obama put forth better ideas in the debate, just that the entire concept of them, and finding a winner and loser based on presentation seems to sum up politics in our country as a whole.

 

[crandc]

I'd like to see the moderator challenge candidates if they say something blatantly untrue. There is political spin and then there is just making shit up. I guess that was the problem, that's why League of Women Voters isn't running them anymore. They didn't let them get away with so much garbage.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think the moderators should absolutely not challenge anything a candidate says. It's about the candidates, not about the moderator. There's plenty of time afterward for the media to take one candidate's words and policy ideas out of context and paint them as lies.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Since we all know that it takes a lot of money to run for president, my suggestion would be to make the debates to be open to all potential candidates, contingent on a very large buy-in (say $5M). That way, the only people who would participate would be those with the wherewithal to mount a legitimate campaign and the sincere intent to do so.

The funds anted would then go to a reimbursement fund for campaign advertisements, so that the funds would still be available to be used for their original assumed purpose, and so that the buy-in would not fatally hamstring lower-level candidates.

 

[barfo]

Since we all know that it takes a lot of money to run for president, my suggestion would be to make the debates to be open to all potential candidates, contingent on a very large buy-in (say $5M).

I would suggest $5T. At that level, we could start paying down the debt.

As a side effect, this would eliminate minor corruption - everyone would know the government was bought and paid for, and exactly who bought it.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Maybe they should ease the requirements to "is on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college."

That would get the Libertarian Party candidate, the Green Party candidate, the independent party candidates (Perot then Buchanan), and the occasional other 3rd party candidate into the debates.

Maybe they should put six random deranged homeless people on stage.

Yes, I miss the Republican primary debates.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Just another of the many ways corporate America controls "our" government and selects "our" representatives for "us".

 

[HailBlazers]

What a shotty run debate, we deserve better for 2012. Seriously, look up debates from the 1980's the quality was worlds better.