The Daily Bruin Editorial Board assumes that you will be sprinting to the polls Nov. 7.
Before you do, however, most of you will educate yourself before that day by watching the presidential candidates tackle tough issues in the nationally televised presidential elections. The debates are vital to the voting process because of their accessibility, mass appeal and public interaction; a 1992 poll found the debates to be the biggest single factor used to determine whom to support.
If you're hoping to learn more about Ross Perot, however, that strategy will fail, since the Commission on Presidential Debates does not want him to participate. This puts him at a disadvantage relative to the two-party candidates and severely limits his chances of winning the election. The Commission on Presidential Debates is making a big mistake by not allowing Perot to participate in the debates.
Denying a candidate the right to speak in the debates makes it impossible for him to succeed. Unfortunately, in the past (with the exception of 1992), the debates have usually only showcased the talents of the two major candidates. This leaves third party candidates, who are still supported by a fair number of Americans, out of the process.
The public continues to see the same two parties represented in the debates, talking about many of the same issues year after year. Those candidates who hold fresh ideas are not given the chance to set foot in the political arena, where the public could reap the benefits of change. The point of the debates should be to express new strategies and views; it is only fair that the inventors of these new ideas be allowed to gain the exposure made possible by television. Without that, they cannot receive the support they may very well deserve.
Still, even this argument does not alter the Commission's decision. The problem lies within the Commission's criteria, which is determined by 10 Commission members (five Republicans and five Democrats).
As it stands, a nonpartisan candidate must have (1) evidence of national organization, (2) signs of newsworthiness and (3) indicators of national public enthusiasm or concern.
A major problem lies in the first criterion, which demands evidence of national organization. National organization requires funding, and for funds a candidate must either be eligible for federal matching funds or show that he has the ability to fund a national campaign on his own.
In 1992, Perot, as a billionaire, had plenty of money for campaigning. In 1996, he made the decision to apply for federal matching funds. Therefore, according to the Commission, he does not meet the criteria for participation because he does not possess enough money to fund a presidential campaign. This criteria needs to be changed, because it fails to acknowledge Perot's viable candidacy, arising from his placement on the ballot in all 50 states, as well as the need for a broadened political dialogue. Only in this way can the public be served.
First, the debates should not be limited to two, or even three, candidates; if the American public is divided and favors five candidates, then up to five candidates should be allowed to speak. Any more would lead to a debate that no one would watch. The five candidates would be chosen by two criteria. The first qualifier for entry in the debates should be their theoretical ability to win the election, as determined by their entry on the ballots in enough states to win the electoral college. Second, the candidates should demonstrate a minimum consistent approval rating in the polls six weeks, four weeks and two weeks before the debates in order to participate.
If the make up of the Commission was not limited to two party members and if the criteria allowed for a better participation rate, the nationally televised presidential debates would more accurately reflect the candidates chosen by the American people. Only a modification of these policies will give you, as a voter, the opportunity to view candidates whose ideas may bring about long-awaited and much-needed change.