By
Laura Helm
As we all sit transfixed by the Olympics, presidential candidates and the American public await the national debates. Only two parties will be represented, the two oldest pillars of the decayed establishment. The debate, as it presently stands, is a rigged event. By rigging the stage, the federal government has systematically closed the political arena off from third party possibilities.
All presidential potentials should be represented in the national debates. That should be common sense. However, not all are invited to attend the fiasco. The "private" Commission on Presidential Debates requires that a candidate show voter support of at least 15 percent in public opinion polls. This number eliminates all but the two established parties.
Rigging begins as the Commission on Presidential Debates excludes candidates based on opinion polls. These opinions are gathered before the people have had the chance to hear them speak. It is hard to form an opinion of someone on that level. Those that have opinions on the candidates have formed them based on media portrayals. That is not how our system was supposed to work.
Fifteen percent is an arbitrary number, seemingly picked at random. There is nothing in constitutional or federal law that requires that number to be used. A candidate needs only five percent support for the government to allot campaign funds from taxes. Though third party players probably will not win the election, it is important that they be present.
Ralph Nader is on the ballot in 43 states. Pat Buchanan, representing the Reform party, is also gaining popularity. These two men, while differing on many issues, agree on one thing. That is the current existence of a taint that covers the government, hiding the grime and scandal. Though neither of these men may win the election for the presidency, they should be included in the debate. Their questions for the two main parties will voice valid sentiments felt by the public.
By excluding the underdogs from the puppet show, important issues are skimmed over. The debates should provide a forum where we can hear political discourse on the subjects that we care about. General election debates serve a great purpose. They should be more than a contrast of the Democrats and Republicans. They should allow us the opportunity to understand our full array of options before deciding on one.
To complete the status of "rigged event" the national presidential debate is sponsored by Anheuser-Busch. This illustrates the rising role of private wealth against the diminishing role of public concern. How can a corporation fund our presidential debate? We can take back our power, call the beer moguls at 800-742-5283, and tell them you are joining the national boycott of their products until the other candidates are included. A boycott of their crappy beer is just what this tasteless campus needs.
Jesse Jackson proposed a resolution that would amend the 15 percent requirement. His proposal reads, "any Presidential candidate should be permitted to participate in the debates among candidates if 1) at least 5 percent of respondents in national public opinion polls of all eligible voters support the candidate's election for President; or 2) if a majority of respondents in such polls support the candidate's participation in such debates." By lowering the percentage needed to participate, popular third party candidates will at least be heard. Allowing the resolution to go through will loosen the ties of the rigged debate. To urge the Commission on Presidential Debates to allow the resolution to pass, call 202-742-5283. Call and leave a message, demanding them to allow the most popular (at least) of the independent candidates.
Do the Democrats and Republicans expect us to take them seriously? Amid all the accusations of soft money and under-the-table financing, are they really going to allow a monstrous beer company to sponsor their debate? The donkey and the elephant have no problem with rigging the debate. By preventing third party participation, they retain a lot. For instance, they maintain more control over which issues are raised and which issues are ignored. Then the two parties are not forced to make any clear statements one way or the other. They are allowed to both continue straddling the same gray fence of ambiguity. It is easier to defend yourself against one opponent. Then it is a case a "my word against his." As soon as another debater enters the arena, the game changes. There are more risks. The playing ground is kept level by rigging the debate. Our country was founded on an open debate system, not a Budweiser commercial.
