FREE ESSAY ON THIRD PARTY PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

THIRD PARTY PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

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 America's 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? " 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
States" (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; "To 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)"
(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 Party's 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 Party's 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 Party's 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 Party's
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 Perot's 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 Bush's
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 Perot's 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 Perot's
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 committee's 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 Perot's attempt to sue his way into
the debates upholding
the district court's decision thus dismissing the lawsuit and ending Perot's attempt to
participate in the debates
(Xinhua,_). Perot's campaign coordinator Russ Verney said, "We will take this to the
American people and on
election day they will have the opportunity to rectify it" (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, "I feel that all candidates should be included
in the debate or else its not
a debate, not a true democracy." and " 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 up" (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 who's
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. 
Bibliography
"Debate." The American Heritage Dictionary. 2nd College Ed. 1982.
"Debate." 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. "Third Party Standards and Standard-Bearers." 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. "Dole Camp Seeking Two Extra Debates." St. Petersburg 
Times. 13 Sept. 1996: 8B.
Neustadt, Richard. "Advisory Committee Report." Advisory Board to Commission 
on Presidential Debates. 1996. Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996. Available
http:/www.debates96.org/advisory.html
Stall, Bill. "Perot Takes Debate Fight to Court." Los Angeles Times. 1 Oct. 1996:
13A
Jackson, Robert. "Perot Loses Bid to Block Clinton-Dole Debate." Los Angeles
Times. 2 Oct. 1996: 16A
---. "Court Turns Down Perot's Appeal on Debate." Xinhua News Agency. 
1996. Online. Internet . 10 Oct. 1996. Available http://www.elibrary.com/
60/127/getdoc.cgi
Pool, Bob. "Readers Debate Perot's Inclusion in Debates." Los Angeles Times.
29 Sept. 1996: 2B