Two-Party System Flaws Presidential Debates

In recent years the public has shown a desire not only for more debates but more from the debates.

The Commission on Presidential Debates attempted to oblige with the 2008 debates.

The 2008 debates have featured issues of domestic and foreign policy. A town hall style debate where people in the audience will ask questions, as well as questions provided from internet viewers.

Co-chairmen of the CPD Paul G. Kirk, Jr. and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr said that “The Commission believes that by including questions from Internet participants, we will enhance and expand the effectiveness of the town meeting debate.”

What many Americans forget is that due to pressure from both parties, the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the presidential debates in 1988. Together the Republicans and Democrats formed what is today known as the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Prior to change, The League of Women Voters ran three debates to touch on three different topics: domestic issues, foreign policy and one specially selected topic. They also hired a panel of very aggressive moderators, and included follow up questions, rebuttals and surbuttals (a reply to a rebuttal).

After the Republican and Democratic parties took over the debate format, they set up a way to block third party candidates from entering the debates.

The League of Women Voters denounced the change as a “fraud on the American people”.

The CPD continues to format the presidential debates based on both parties’ decisions.

George Farah, creator of Open Debates a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to reforming the presidential debate process, is against the CPD.

Farah told CNN that “the [major] parties want to have a monopoly over presidential debates they can control.”

“What type of debate prohibits candidates from actually talking to each other,” said Farah. “That’s not a debate, that’s a glorified bipartisan press conference.”

Farah believes that when the panel consists of hard nosed moderators who ask questions that provoke thought it requires the candidates to “get past the memorized sound byte” and forces the candidates to think on their feet in front of millions of voters.

Others believe more third party candidates are needed as well.

However for Third Party Candidates to attend these debates they must, according to the CPD, reach polling at 15 percent in the national election polls.

In 1992, for the first and only time, the CPD allowed third party candidate Ross Perot, an independent from Texas, to debate. Perot was a popular choice among the American public due to his stance on the economy. Later Perot was accused of ‘stealing’ votes from Bush Sr.

Perot was barred from the 1996 debates because the CPD said he didn’t have “a realistic chance to win the election.”

Neither Republican Bob Dole nor Democrat Bill Clinton objected as some say both believed Perot would take votes from them.

The Commission had set strict rules for the 2000 and 2004 debates. Yet, in this year’s presidential debates the parties agreed to open the debate rules.

In the history of presidential elections mandatory debates are a fairly new idea.

Debates of the past were informative but also entertaining. Candidates were forced to think on their feet to discuss plans and policies.

Now, many say, candidates just recite pre-written answers they pre-wrote to with campaign advisors prior to the debate.

The origin of Presidential debates goes back to 1858, known today as the Lincoln-Douglas debtes, when Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephan Douglas fought for a seat in the US Senate with a series of seven debates.

These debates were face to face without a moderator. Each candidate took turns with a one hour opening speech, followed by a one and a half hour rebuttal and concluding with a half an hour closing statement.

Until 1960, debates only came about when one candidate challenged another.

In 1940, GOP candidate Wendell Willkie challenged President Franklin D. Roosevelt to a debate although FDR declined.

In 1956, Fred A. Kahn, holocaust survivor and student and the University of Maryland, proposed the idea for modern presidential debates. On September 26, 1960 over 66 million people watched the first televised presidential debate between Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon.

Over the next three presidential elections from 1964 to 1972 there were no debates between the republicans and democratic candidates. Instead there were only debates for the democratic primaries.

Even though the 2008 debates will be more interactive, they are still missing most of the candidates running for office.

Independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr, and Green party candidate Cynthia McKinney just to name a few, have not attended.

Some argue that if these candidates participate in the debates, voters would be able to see sides of candidates they would normally not see in a two party debate.

European countries such as France and England offer a different style of debates than witnessed in the U.S.

In France, the presidential candidates sit across from one another and ask each other questions about the others policies. Then they debate their points.

In England, the candidates for prime minister sit a across from one another and argue about each others policies. However, both men are surrounded by a group of supporters who heckle and yell at their opponent.

Even though both styles are more aggressive than that of the United States, critics believe they accomplish more.

They say each candidate is forced to think on his feet, and show how he is able to react when his back is against the wall.

That is why people like Farah believe we need to reform the debates.