An anonymous coward writes:

"Open the Debates"

Ralph Nader, CommonDreams.org

Last week, Open Debates (see Opendebates.org), a
nonprofit, non-partisan organization, whose purposes I
support, filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) against the Commission on Presidential
Debates (CPD) which was created and is controlled by
the Republican and Democratic Parties. Open Debates
charged, with documentation, that the CPD is not non-
partisan but is deeply bi-partisan, serving and obeying
the dictates of the two major Parties.

Open Debates argues that such control is a violation of
FEC debate regulations. Corporate contributions which
could go only to an educational association are instead
going to a bi-partisan political organization which is
unlawful.A new, non-partisan Citizens Debate Commission (CDC)
has been established by Open Debates with a Board of
Directors composed of conservative, liberal and
moderate representatives. The CDC is not under the
control of any candidates or any parties. It serves an
educational function to sponsor rigorous debates with
exciting third party or independent candidates
participating.

This entry criteria is not easy but it is possible,
unlike the CPD's mountainous hurdle, required in 2000,
of averaging 15% voter support in 5 national polls in
September. Even Ross Perot, who got on the debates in
1992 and received 19 million votes, did not come close
to reaching a 15% level in September of that year.

The new Debate Commission's criteria are that a
candidate must be on enough states' ballots to be able
theoretically to win the electoral college, and must
either garner 5% voter support or be supported by a
majority of citizens in polls who want him/her to be on
the Presidential debates.

Open Debates had a news conference on February 19th at
the National Press Club (carried by C-Span) where
directors of the Citizen Debate Commission spoke their
mind on the necessity to open up the debate process to
vital issues and differing views by more than two major
party candidates. In 2000, candidates Bush and Gore set
a debate record for agreeing with one another.

All the speakers, Paul Weyrich, Alan Keyes, Kert Davies
and Rob Richie provided their unique elaborations for
the benefits to the voters, their vital issues, and
voter turnout from more diverse debates and more
flexible debate formats. The existing CPD debate
formats are really parallel interviews by one
questioner, and not really debates.

There is an additional importance. The debates are
overwhelmingly the only major way candidates, without
big money and television ads, can reach the American
people. Indeed, even with the big-money candidates it
is presently the only way that any positions or
rebuttals can be communicated apart from soundbite
journalism on television. The major nominees usually do
not like to give long interviews to the press or go on
radio.

My nephew, Tarek Milleron, while thinking about this
debate subject, came up with a sterling idea. The CPD
stonewalls all criticisms and challenges (although a
new book-length expose by George Farah may flush it out
soon). So Milleron proposes tens of thousands of proxy
debates all over the country -- in schools,
universities, Elks Clubs, union halls, chambers of
commerce, forums by the League of Women Voters, the
Junior League Civic and neighborhood associations.
People would volunteer to stand in for the Presidential
candidates, under cross-questioning debate formats. The
internet can help find these proxies. National sponsors
can offer user-friendly debate manuals, prizes and
other incentives that bring the better debates beyond
their auditoriums to websites with larger audiences.

High school and college debate teams should pick this
idea up readily on a national scale. They are already
trained and ready to go. The point is not an occasional
debate here and there which probably goes on, but a
large number of debates everywhere in the country with
a national focus. His proposal would be a great
educational mechanism to inform and animate voters and
bring them to the polls in greater numbers. It would
also help to diversify the issues and broaden the
subject matter and solutions to our problems which are
deserving of attention by those Presidential candidates
on the ballot.

Usually, presidential contests between the two major
parties narrow the number of repeated disagreements,
however rhetorical, to a half dozen or less. This cul
de sac campaign shortchanges the many matters that are
left out. Also excluded are the many people, whose on
the ground innovations, for example, in education, tax
reform, energy, public transit, health care, civil and
criminal justice, childhood nurturing, recycling,
consumer rights, workplace conditions and more
effective foreign policy and defense call out for
attention and diffusion.

Milleron's proposal is very cost-effective; but it
needs a new level of voter will power to participate in
the upcoming Presidential election not just accede to a
spectator role. Should these mini-debates proliferate,
the Citizens Debate Commission will be on its way to
displacing the stagnant, arrogant corporate-sponsored,
corporation known as the Commission on Presidential
Debates.

E-mail Ralph Nader: info@votenader.org"