CPD a two party system

Brent Fassino
Spcm420
11/18/09
CPD a Two Party System
Before the 1960s, political debates, as we know them today, were non-existent. Since the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy, public debates have become a staple of any presidential election. Debates usually take place between the two most popular candidates of the two most dominant political parties. The content of these debates usually includes current events, controversial topics, and in some extreme cases personal character. The format of debate has gone through some drastic changes over the course of the last several presidential elections. In the early stages of public presidential debates there was essentially no official format. Candidates would go at it face to face for about a half an hour or so and who ever could keep their composure the best at the end was usually declared the winner. However, now that the success of the candidate’s election relies heavily on the image that they project during their debate, every minor detail that goes into setting up a debate is narrowly tailored and arbitrated by an appointed organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). In 1988 the CPD took over and became the only agency that was legitimately allowed to host presidential debates. The goal of the CPD is to make debates fair and nonpartisan in the areas of neutrality, moderation, division of time, and type of format. But what they fail to do is provide a platform for third party candidates to gain publicity.
In selecting a neutral site for a debate, the CPD has to consider many different factors. It can be difficult to find the right town for a debate to take place. No location can be selected in a particular candidate’s home town for obvious reasons and small towns are usually out of the running because of the necessary accommodations that they will not be able to provide such as available hotel rooms. In addition, candidates are provided with an equal amount of time to give their opening and closing statements about the issues. In some formats candidates are allowed a certain amount of time to respond to questions. In certain cases candidates are allowed time for rebuttals and even cross examination on the issues. The 3 most popular formats for debate are as follows. The single moderator format is where a debate is hosted by a single person, usually a journalist for the media, who asks the questions and directs them to the candidates. The panelist format, where multiple people who are usually TV personalities, take turns asking questions. Or the town hall meeting format, where members in the audience ask questions directly to the candidates. To qualify for a debate, the candidate must have a feasible chance of being able to win the election. Or some may argue they must be a Republican or a Democrat.
The CPD is seen by many as biased towards the two party system who claim that the organization was formed solely to protect the Democrats and Republicans from third party intrusion. In a news conference with Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic national chairman, and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the Republican national chairman, they claimed that “they had the support of all the 1988 Presidential hopefuls for the new arrangement, which they said would ''institutionalize'' the debates and strengthen the role of the political parties in the electoral process. In response to questions, Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit group made up of representatives from each party, was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates. He said the issue was a matter for the commission to consider when it worked out the format, timing and other details of the debates with the candidates. Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates. But he said he could not speak for the commission.”
More recently, in the 1992 presidential elections, Clinton emerged as the favored candidate after the voters no longer supported Bush. However, once potential scandals started to come out, third party candidate Ross Perot's approval became evident in the polls with a commanding lead of about 39 percent. Later that year when Perot dropped out of the presidential race, Clintons following went way up. When Perot announced that he would be reentering the race, the CPD expressed their discomfort with him. Mickey Kantor, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign, said that “the commission was worried about the precedent of third-party candidates always being included.” This eventually led to the 15 percent stipulation in 2000. This required the potential candidates to have at least a 15 percent support level in 5 national polls in order to participate in the debates. Since it is virtually impossible for someone who is excluded from the debates to attain 15 percent support, it seems as if the Republican and Democratic parties got what they wished for. (Farah)
In a book written by George Farah, the executive director of Open Debates, he gives a critique of the CPD. He claims that the CPD “is not the honorable institution it claims to be. It is a corporate-funded, bipartisan cartel that secretly awards control of the presidential debates to the Republican and Democratic candidates, perpetuating domination of a two-party system and restricting subject matters of political discourse." (Farah) He claims that because the commission receives corporate donations, they have more incentive to exclude the third party candidates from the debates. The CPD is creating an illusion of fairness. The Commission consistently yields to the demands of the two major party candidates on virtually all questions, including those involving third party participation, debate formats, moderators, timing of the debates, lighting and other staging details, and so on. Typically, representatives of the two major party presidential candidates discuss these issues and arrive at a "Memorandum of Understanding." At this point, claims Farah, "the CPD, posing as an independent sponsor, implements the directives of the Memoranda of Understanding," shielding the major-party candidates from public criticism and lawsuits. (Farah)
The fact that the very organization that we trust to provide a fair and unbiased platform for our future leaders to mold our opinions is borderline corrupt, makes me think that a change is in order. The domination of the two party system is stunting the growth of our country by only allowing us to have access to pre selected candidates who may or may not represent the opinions of the American public. Whether you are a diehard Democrat or Republican, I think we can all agree that having more open and less scripted debates with people who have differing philosophies will help the American people to make a wiser and more informed decision about the person who they feel best embodies the character that they want in a leader. Allowing third party candidates will force the two major parties to field the absolute best candidate they have to offer, and not just a past President's son.

Work cited

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. George Farah. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004