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
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Politics Online
Brent Fassino
Spcm 420
The reliance on the internet has become increasingly important to politicians in the past few years. I predict that in the next few, we will begin to see a full scale melding of politics and the use of online forums. In the election process, things like twitter, face book, and YouTube are becoming the biggest tools to convey the campaign messages of our future leaders, and for good reason. These forms of communication allow for a quick and effective way to spread messages across a large segment of the population of potential voters. Not only does this technology enable the candidates to reach out to voters, it encourages them to get involved.
Young people are finding it easier to get online and express their opinions about political candidates by starting groups and gaining a following. A popular social networking site known as Facebook, has more than 50 million users worldwide that is growing larger by the hour. In 2007 a university of Missouri student started a group called 1 million strong for Obama on face book that captured the attention of more than 1000 people in mere hours. In addition to voter turnout, social networking web sites also influence other things like fundraising, branding, and volunteering. Supporters can get online and actually be a part of the political movements which has a remarkable effect on political elections. Obama was one of the first candidates to get on board with this movement. He started a MySpace page back in 2007 where he quickly “friended” about 160,000 people. These friends were now able to receive updates about when and where rallies were being held, possible ways to contribute to Obama’s campaign, and things that they could do to spread the word. This is something that other political candidates overlooked and it may have very well cost them the votes of the young voting demographic. Not only did the use of social networking sites help Obama to acquire a large following, but it also helped market him as an average guy. The concept of homophily would describe this as the tendency of people to bond with other people that they perceive to be similar to them. Since Obama was seen as someone who was still in touch with the young people, the younger voters felt that they finally had a voice in politics and that encouraged them to take control and become more involved with the elections.
Online video web sites such as YouTube are another great way for politicians to spread their message. These web sites allow videos to be uploaded from anywhere around the world and instantly accessed by millions of people. Anyone can take a video of a speech on their cell phone and send it half way across the world in a matter of minutes. The implications of this technology could be either positive or negative considering the context. Imagine if a candidate slips up during an interview or a speech and says something offensive. Before that candidate has time to retract their statement their words have already been heard by thousands of people. In 2008 senator Ann Coulter experienced this first hand. “First, conservative commentator Ann Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot” in her CPAC speech. Second, after the campaign of Mitt Romney, who had spoken just before Coulter, labeled her remark offensive, video leaked showing Romney and Coulter laughing together backstage (CNN).” However, online video can also serve as an effective communication tool for politics. Hillary Clinton strayed away from the traditional approach of announcing her candidacy. Instead of holding a press conference or appearing on a television program, Hillary posted her candidacy on her website and shortly after posted a video on YouTube. Obama followed the same route.
YouTube also serves as a platform that allows voters to become more involved in the political process. People can edit video clips of candidates to convey their own messages about their character like the infamous apple parody ad about Hillary Clinton or the Obama rap video. This new technology puts a whole new spin on the attack ad. It is controlled by the voters and not the actual campaign. It also allows normal people to engage in political discourse one on one with the candidates themselves. In the 2008 election people were able to post questions online via YouTube that were discussed by the democratic candidates in a public debate forum. This alone broke new ground for the progression of political communication because anyone with access to a computer could now become part of the debate.
Twitter is another form of online communication that allows people to create networks of followers that can receive updates about anything right to their cell phones. More politicians are starting to get on board with twitter and other micro blogging mediums after the success that Obama showed with it. Twitter not only allows politicians to supply their followers with vital information about current situations it also allows for real time public participation. People attending a political speech can send real time updates to their followers about what is being said, what they think about it and how people are reacting to it. This is extremely useful information for any politician to have in their possession. With this information they are able to tailor their speeches to the needs of the audience. Twitter can also be used as a tracking device to keep people informed about the whereabouts of politicians and if they are using their time wisely and if anything you say or do can and will be used against you, you are probably going to want to project an image of competence at all times.
In my opinion technology is in the early stages of impacting the way that politics are conducted. It has yet to be fully embraced by the older generations who account for a majority of the active voters. However, the young voters will age and they will become the dominant voter demographic. It is important that future candidates embrace new communication technology because, whether they like it or not, it is going to affect them in some way. The access of power is starting to shift from the campaigns to the hands of the voters. The YouTube video with a catchy theme that cost 100 dollars to make could have more impact on a candidate’s election than the million dollar campaign commercial. The MySpace or face book page could attract more people than the hundreds of thousands of kiosks set up around the United States. Twitter may very well become the best way to keep voters updated on events as they are happening. As the transmission of information becomes easier to use, people will find that it is more beneficial to take part in politics and they will realize that their voice can go a long way. People will become more involved in the decision making process and will ultimately cut out the middle man between voters and politics. As more people see that their opinion does matter, more people will be optimistic about becoming part of the political discourse which would benefit America greatly.
Bibliography
“Coulter under fire for anti-gay slur” CNN.com 6:31 a.m. EST, March 4, 2007. Web. 09 Nov. 2009
Spcm 420
The reliance on the internet has become increasingly important to politicians in the past few years. I predict that in the next few, we will begin to see a full scale melding of politics and the use of online forums. In the election process, things like twitter, face book, and YouTube are becoming the biggest tools to convey the campaign messages of our future leaders, and for good reason. These forms of communication allow for a quick and effective way to spread messages across a large segment of the population of potential voters. Not only does this technology enable the candidates to reach out to voters, it encourages them to get involved.
Young people are finding it easier to get online and express their opinions about political candidates by starting groups and gaining a following. A popular social networking site known as Facebook, has more than 50 million users worldwide that is growing larger by the hour. In 2007 a university of Missouri student started a group called 1 million strong for Obama on face book that captured the attention of more than 1000 people in mere hours. In addition to voter turnout, social networking web sites also influence other things like fundraising, branding, and volunteering. Supporters can get online and actually be a part of the political movements which has a remarkable effect on political elections. Obama was one of the first candidates to get on board with this movement. He started a MySpace page back in 2007 where he quickly “friended” about 160,000 people. These friends were now able to receive updates about when and where rallies were being held, possible ways to contribute to Obama’s campaign, and things that they could do to spread the word. This is something that other political candidates overlooked and it may have very well cost them the votes of the young voting demographic. Not only did the use of social networking sites help Obama to acquire a large following, but it also helped market him as an average guy. The concept of homophily would describe this as the tendency of people to bond with other people that they perceive to be similar to them. Since Obama was seen as someone who was still in touch with the young people, the younger voters felt that they finally had a voice in politics and that encouraged them to take control and become more involved with the elections.
Online video web sites such as YouTube are another great way for politicians to spread their message. These web sites allow videos to be uploaded from anywhere around the world and instantly accessed by millions of people. Anyone can take a video of a speech on their cell phone and send it half way across the world in a matter of minutes. The implications of this technology could be either positive or negative considering the context. Imagine if a candidate slips up during an interview or a speech and says something offensive. Before that candidate has time to retract their statement their words have already been heard by thousands of people. In 2008 senator Ann Coulter experienced this first hand. “First, conservative commentator Ann Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot” in her CPAC speech. Second, after the campaign of Mitt Romney, who had spoken just before Coulter, labeled her remark offensive, video leaked showing Romney and Coulter laughing together backstage (CNN).” However, online video can also serve as an effective communication tool for politics. Hillary Clinton strayed away from the traditional approach of announcing her candidacy. Instead of holding a press conference or appearing on a television program, Hillary posted her candidacy on her website and shortly after posted a video on YouTube. Obama followed the same route.
YouTube also serves as a platform that allows voters to become more involved in the political process. People can edit video clips of candidates to convey their own messages about their character like the infamous apple parody ad about Hillary Clinton or the Obama rap video. This new technology puts a whole new spin on the attack ad. It is controlled by the voters and not the actual campaign. It also allows normal people to engage in political discourse one on one with the candidates themselves. In the 2008 election people were able to post questions online via YouTube that were discussed by the democratic candidates in a public debate forum. This alone broke new ground for the progression of political communication because anyone with access to a computer could now become part of the debate.
Twitter is another form of online communication that allows people to create networks of followers that can receive updates about anything right to their cell phones. More politicians are starting to get on board with twitter and other micro blogging mediums after the success that Obama showed with it. Twitter not only allows politicians to supply their followers with vital information about current situations it also allows for real time public participation. People attending a political speech can send real time updates to their followers about what is being said, what they think about it and how people are reacting to it. This is extremely useful information for any politician to have in their possession. With this information they are able to tailor their speeches to the needs of the audience. Twitter can also be used as a tracking device to keep people informed about the whereabouts of politicians and if they are using their time wisely and if anything you say or do can and will be used against you, you are probably going to want to project an image of competence at all times.
In my opinion technology is in the early stages of impacting the way that politics are conducted. It has yet to be fully embraced by the older generations who account for a majority of the active voters. However, the young voters will age and they will become the dominant voter demographic. It is important that future candidates embrace new communication technology because, whether they like it or not, it is going to affect them in some way. The access of power is starting to shift from the campaigns to the hands of the voters. The YouTube video with a catchy theme that cost 100 dollars to make could have more impact on a candidate’s election than the million dollar campaign commercial. The MySpace or face book page could attract more people than the hundreds of thousands of kiosks set up around the United States. Twitter may very well become the best way to keep voters updated on events as they are happening. As the transmission of information becomes easier to use, people will find that it is more beneficial to take part in politics and they will realize that their voice can go a long way. People will become more involved in the decision making process and will ultimately cut out the middle man between voters and politics. As more people see that their opinion does matter, more people will be optimistic about becoming part of the political discourse which would benefit America greatly.
Bibliography
“Coulter under fire for anti-gay slur” CNN.com 6:31 a.m. EST, March 4, 2007. Web. 09 Nov. 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)