The Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary defines debate as; To engage in argument by discussing opposing points (American Heritage,369). Another definition is as follows; a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition (American Heritage,369). The Random House College Dictionary offers this definition; To engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.) (Random House,342).
So which definition is correct? We know a debate is a discussion or an argument. What has to be decided is whether or not it is between two groups or several groups. That same question has arisen in the Presidential debates of the 1996 presidential election campaigns. That question being whether or not Ross Perot and his running mate should have been included in the debates with President Clinton, Bob Dole and their running mates.
In order to answer this question we have to know more about the debates history. The presidential debates are in place for the public to see and hear what the candidates have to say about issues facing the nation. While debating between presidential candidates has been occurring throughout AmericaÆs history they were limited to a small audience (Leone,_). However with the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon a whole new world was opened as millions of viewers watched the debates on television (Leone,_). Those first televised debates are generally credited with giving John F. Kennedy the winning margin in a very close presidential race (Leone,_).
Following the 1960 election there were no publicly televised debates until 1976, and since then the debates have become an expected and important feature of presidential campaigns (Leone,_). The confidence of the debates with widespread views of general lack of government legitimacy prompted the formation of the Presidential Debate Commission before the 1988 election thus replacing the League of Women Voters as the debate sponsors (Leone,_).
What is the purpose of this commission? ô The mission of the Commission on Presidential Debates is to ensure for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United Statesö (Commission,_). The commission sponsored the debates of 1988, 1992 and are planning, organizing and implementing the 1996 debates (Commission,_).
The commission also has a goal that is; ôTo afford the members of the voting public an opportunity to sharpen their views of those candidates from among whom the next President or Vice president will be selected. In light of the large number of declared candidates in any given presidential election, the Commission has determined that its voter education goal is best achieved by limiting debate participation to the next President and his or her principal rival(s)ö
(The Commission on Presidential Debates,_).
In the case of a third party the Commission also has a position. The Commission developed nonpartisan criteria to base its decision regarding selection of nonmajor party candidates for participation in the 1996 debates(Commission,_). The purpose is to identify nonmajor candidates who realistically have a chance of election as the next President of the United States and who are considered to be among the principal rivals for the Presidency (Commission,_). The commission goes on to say that the chances do not have to be overwhelming, but must be more than theoretical (Commission,_).
The Commissions criteria for inclusion in the debates of a nonmajor party candidate is a review of the following questions; Is there evidence of national organization, are there signs of national newsworthiness and competitiveness, are there indicators of national enthusiasm or concern, to determine whether the candidate has a significant chance of election to warrant inclusion in one or more of its debates (Commission,_)?
In order to better understand these criteria we have to look at them in greater detail. Evidence of national organization involves satisfaction of the eligibility requirement of the Constitution of the United States (Commission,_). The candidate should have placement on ballots in enough states to have a mathematical chance of obtaining an electoral college majority (Commisson,_). The candidate should also have organization in a majority of congressional districts on those states (Commission,_). Finally the candidate must be eligible for matching funds from the Federal Election Commission or be able to adequately fund a national campaign and be endorsed by federal and state office holders (Commission,_).
Signs of national newsworthiness and competitiveness are described by opinions of electoral experts, media and non-media personnel (Commission,_). They include professional opinions of the Washington bureau chiefs of major newspapers, magazines and broadcast networks (Commission,_). The opinions of professional campaign managers and pollsters, not affiliated with the candidate, and those of political scientist specializing in electoral process are also taken into consideration (Commission,_). Column inches on newspaper front pages and exposure on network telecast in comparison with the other major candidates as well as views published by prominent political commentators are considered (Commission,_).
The third criteria involves evidence of national public enthusiasm or concern to asses public support for a candidate(Commission,_). The factors considered are the results of significant public opinion polls conducted by national polling and news organizations as well as reported attendance of meetings and rallies across the nation in comparison with the two major party candidates(Commission,_).
We might say that all of the criteria for third parties to be included in the debates are good and fine or not, but who is on this commission that gives them authority to decide the fate of candidates. Believe it or not there are some impressive names of individuals on the commission. This includes both former Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter, Governor Pete Wilson, two state representatives, Lewis and Vucanovich, as well as Caroline Kennedy the daughter of late President John F. Kennedy (Commission,_).
There are also thirteen national organizations that work with the Commission to promote the educational values of the debates. These organizations also try to find ways to get the young people of America involved in the political process (Commission,_). Included in this grouping are The American Library Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National School Board Association and the Newspaper Association of America among others (Commission,_). One could say this commission is fairly represented by individuals and organizations that are knowledgeable of the election process, but are they representative of the voting public. That is for you to decide.
Now that we know about the Commission on Presidential Debates stand on third parties being in the debates we should find out a little more about who the third parties are. Actually in this 1996 election year there are several third party candidates running for the office of President of the United States. Most of us are familiar with Ross Perot because of his 1992 election campaign and the events of his current campaign, however there are four other party candidates.
The Libertarian PartyÆs presidential candidate is Harry Brown and their vice presidential candidate Jo Jorgenson (Hall,7A). They are on the ballot in 50 states (Hall,7A). In 1992 this parties candidates received less than 1% of the vote (Hall,7A). The Natural Law PartyÆs candidates include John Hagelin and Mike Tompkins (Hall,7A). They are on the ballots in 45 states (Hall,7A). In 1992 they received less than 50,000 votes(Hall,7A). The Taxpayers PartyÆs candidates are Howard Phillips and Herbert Titus (Hall,7A). They are on the ballots in 39 states, and like the Natural Law Party received less than 50,000 votes in 1992 (Hall,7A). Finally the Green PartyÆs candidates are Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke (Hall,7A). They are on the ballots in 22 states and did not have a candidate in 1992 (Hall,7A). Can you see where each of these parties fail to meet the criteria set up by the Commission on Presidential debates?
In the 1992 debates H. Ross Perot emerged as a strong third party candidate. Let us compare him with the other third party candidates. His party name is the Reform Party. His running mate is Pat Choate. They are on the ballot in 50 states (Hall,7A). In 1992 the Reform Party did not exist but Perot ran as an independent and collected 20 million votes or 19% of the total (Hall,7A). In comparison only the Libertarian Party is also on the ballots in 50 states a close second being the Natural Law Party in 45 states. As far as total votes received none of the parties came close to duplicating PerotÆs totals.
So what happened to Perot and the Reform Party in 1996? Why were they excluded from the presidential debates? What is the difference between 1996 debates and the 1992 debates in which he was included? These are questions that have been answered by the Advisory Board to the Commission on Presidential Debate. First we need to look at what Perot was doing in 1992.
A monopoly has been held on the American presidency by the Democratic and Republican parties since 1860 (Black,_). Racial discord, economic distress and ideology has given rise to third parties and caused the major parties to deal with touchy issues such as slavery and women voting (Black,_). In 1992 the economy was the issue (Black,_). Perot as a billionaire business man gained credibility when he taunted the two major parties on their unwillingness to address the dangers of the budget deficit, national debt and the trade imbalance (Black,_ ).
Third parties do best at times of discontent with the major parties and when headed by a well-known person (Black,_). Perot at first was not known to many but he used television to his advantage to become a household name (Black,_). That coupled with the disgust of the voters with the Democrat and Republican gridlock in Washington propelled Perot into serious contention (Black,_). At one point Perot was given 40% of the vote in polls (Judis,_).
Was that the only reason Perot was included in the debates? No. The Bush campaign had insisted that Perot be included in the debates (Black,_). Bush was trailing in the polls and the campaign strategist needed to do something dramatic to change the race (Black,_). So in their debate negotiations with the Clinton campaign they insisted Perot be included reasoning that a one-on-one challenge between Bush and Clinton was not to BushÆs advantage (Black,_). So the tables were set. We know the results of the election. Clinton won and Perot received 19% of the vote.
So what is the difference for Perot in 1996? Interestingly enough is the fact that the Republican campaign does not want Perot included in the debates believing Perot will only draw votes away from Dole (Debenport, 8B). That might bring up speculation as to whether or not the major debating parties actually control who participates in the debates. In actuality however the Commission on Presidential Debates convened an advisory board to determine PerotÆs participation.
A letter from the Advisory Board to the Commission on Presidential Debates to the Co-Chairmen of the Commission on Presidential Debates gives us the boards determination as to PerotÆs exclusion from the debates. It stated that they reviewed the data that was assembled for them, and conducted independent telephonic inquiries of their own political scientists and political journalists across the country (Neustadt,_). Based on this information they concluded that Perot , at this point of the campaign has no realistic chance of being elected (Neustadt,_). They went on to say that they took into consideration his previous run for the presidency but that his chance in the House of Representatives was incalculable (Neustadt,_). This letter was dated September 17, 1996.
Perot took his exclusion to court to demand he be included in the debates. His lawyers contend that if he can not participate in the debates and get exposure that he can not be competitive and therefor would not have a realistic chance to win a majority of votes (Stall,13A). The results of his hearing were to uphold the Commissions decision. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan heard two hours of legal argument after which he said that he lacked legal authority to tell the Federal Election Committee and the Presidential Debate Commission to include Perot or any other third party candidate. (Jackson,16A)
Judge Thomas also went on to say that the candidates could pursue their complaints with the Federal Election Committee but the commission is not required to resolve the complaint before the election (Jackson,16A). Hogan also endorsed the committeeÆs point that it is not a constitutional right for anyone to be included in the debates, that Congress established the rules governing presidential elections and that is something the courts do not interfere with (Jackson,16A).
On October 4,1996 a federal appeals court rejected PerotÆs attempt to sue his way into the debates upholding the district court's decision thus dismissing the lawsuit and ending PerotÆs attempt to participate in the debates (Xinhua,_). PerotÆs campaign coordinator Russ Verney said, ôWe will take this to the American people and on election day they will have the opportunity to rectify itö (Xinhua,_).
Government has made a ruling on this situation, but are not the debates for the people. So what do the people have to say about this? The Los Angeles Times conducted a poll of their readers asking if they thought Perot should be included in the debates. By a 3-to-1 ratio they supported including Perot in the debates (Pool,2B). Some of the comments in favor of Perot include, ôI feel that all candidates should be included in the debate or else its not a debate, not a true democracy.ö and ô The two party system is afraid of the topics he is going to bring up, not of him personally, but of the topics he is going to bring upö (Pool,2B). Of course the opinions of those who did not think he should be included were also there.
Is it up to the people to decide who they hear debate or is it better to have a commission weed out those whoÆs chance of being elected is dim? Thus we the people can focus on the two primary candidates without having to keep track of comments from a candidate bound to failure. Or would a third party candidate allow us to decipher, compare and contrast what the two major party candidates have to say about the issues? I guess we will never know until those third party candidates are permitted without restriction to debate the big guns.
Works Cited
ôDebate.ö The American Heritage Dictionary. 2nd College Ed. 1982.
ôDebate.ö The Random House College Dictionary. Revised Ed. 1980.
Leone, Richard. Let America Decide: The Report of the Twentieth Century Task
Force on Presidential Debates. 1995. Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996
Available http://epn.org/tcf/debfor.html
The Commission on Presidential Debates. Candidate Selection Criteria. 1995
Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996. Available http://www.debates96.org/
criteria.html
The Commission on Presidential Debates. Commission Members 1996. Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996. Available http://wupa.wush.edu/debate/ commission.html
Hall, Mimi. ôThird Party Standards and Standard-Bearers.ö USA Today. 19 Oct. 1996: 7A.
Black, Christine. The Third Party Challenge. 1994. Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996
Available http://www.elibrary.com/id/60/127/getdoc.cgi
Judis, John. The Third Rail. 1996. Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996. Available http://
www.elibrary.com/id/60/127/getdoc.cgi
Debenport, Ellen. ôDole Camp Seeking Two Extra Debates.ö St. Petersburg
Times. 13 Sept. 1996: 8B.
Neustadt, Richard. ôAdvisory Committee Report.ö Advisory Board to Commission
on Presidential Debates. 1996. Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996. Available
http:/www.debates96.org/advisory.html
Stall, Bill. ôPerot Takes Debate Fight to Court.ö Los Angeles Times. 1 Oct. 1996:
13A
Jackson, Robert. ôPerot Loses Bid to Block Clinton-Dole Debate.ö Los Angeles
Times. 2 Oct. 1996: 16A
---. ôCourt Turns Down PerotÆs Appeal on Debate.ö Xinhua News Agency.
1996. Online. Internet . 10 Oct. 1996. Available http://www.elibrary.com/
60/127/getdoc.cgi
Pool, Bob. ôReaders Debate PerotÆs Inclusion in Debates.ö Los Angeles Times.
