An Amendment governing Presidential debates?

Great Debates
1

With election season upon us, the American public is again going to be treated to the spectacle of debates between “the” two candidates for President, only to discover (for the first time, for many of them) that there are several other candidates for the office for that office.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (http://www.debates.org) bases their invitations to the debates on three criteria: Constitutional Eligibility, Evidence of Ballot Access, and Indicators of Electoral Support.

The first criterion is self-explanatory.

For the second, the CPD states: " . . . the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2000 general election." This is, I suppose, fair enough–if a candidate is on only two state ballots, they really aren’t viable.

The third, however, is the rub: “The CPD’s third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.”

Why is this third criterion even necessary? If the second is satisfied, then the third is superfluous; let their level of support be determined after the debates, not prior. Furthermore, it makes the process self-defeating; candidates cannot gain support without being part of the election process, but they cannot be part of the process without gaining support.

Maybe we need to amend the Constitution to make these debates less exclusive. Why not simply propose an amendment that says:

a) The candidates for President shall meet for 4 debates between the time of the nominating conventions and election day;
b) Debates shall be held on the floor of the House of Representatives; and
c) All candidates who are Constitutionall eligible and on the ballot in all 50 states shall be eligible to participate?

Thoughts? Will this lead to too many candidates for voters to follow, or will it lead to a legitimate widening of options?

2

Sounds like a good idea. Good luck getting the Republicrats to go along with it though.

3

I agree, an excellent idea. But the current system wouldn’t allow the amendment to pass. Might as well amend the entire system, while you’re at it.

4

I like the idea, but I agree: the current two major parties would never allow such a thing to happen, at least not without large public outcry (such as the Perot groundswell in 1992).

Maybe that’s where Jesse Ventura should be concentrating his resources.

5

It seems eminently fair, but is politically inexpedient for those in power. I agree with the general consensus that those with political clout will never allow it to happen unless the expediency shifts, such that enacting it is demanded by their electorate.

6

See the list of challenges, complaints, petitions, lawsuits, and proposed legislation on precisely this issue at the end of this webpage, and WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE(S) to urge their support for the proposed solution you favor! Don’t just talk about a public outcry, be part of one.

7

Seems we all agree that this has zero percent chance of passing, but since we’re just discussing it in a “what if” mode- why even go through all the amending rigamorole? Why not just make it a condition that receiving Federal matching funds requires that a candidate participate in debates set up under the above criteria (although I think it better to use for C “on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes”; I’d hate to see somebody left out if they were only short two or three states).
Even if a particularly wellfunded candidate opted not to receive matching funds it would be very difficult for him or her to skip such a debate. Not only would the candidate look like an arrogant wuss, but he or she would risk letting the other candidates gang up for a lot of serious unanswered attacks.

8

Interesting link, Kim! I know Mary Clare Wohlford personally. If anyone can get it done, she can.

9

Anyone know exactly what it takes to get one’s name upon the ballot as a Presidential candidate? IIRC, it varies from state to state, but revolves around having a petition signed by 10,000 of that state’s voters.

So to be listed on all 50 ballots takes a national organization, but only about 500,000 national votes. Out of a potential national 250 million. .2%.

Phil- let’s say your amendment passes. If I were the President of Paramount, every four years I’d go through my list of upcoming holiday movies and have one of my major stars run for President. Shouldn’t be too hard to find 10,000 women in each state willing to sign a petition for Tom Cruise to run for President; or 10,000 men willing to sign a petition for Michelle Pfieffer. Especially if the studio is willing to give away freebies. In exchange, then I get a full hour of national airtime for my star to plug my movie. “Mr. Cruise, how do you feel we should respond to possible nuclear threats?” “Well, I think that in my next movie, Mission Improbable 4: Payback Time, you’ll find out all you need to know about how I’d handle nuclear terrorists. Coming March 7th to theaters near you.”

I feel that some level of national prestige, some significant percentage of voters actually willing to vote for a candidate, is absolutely necessary for that candidate to truly participate in the national dialogue. Is 15% too high? Maybe; but the 0% you’re proposing is much too low- even today, that would mean at least 6 candidates (7 if the Communist Party is still actually fielding candidates) for the debates; and who knows how exponentially that will expand if we make the requirements so low? Do you really think a twenty person debate will inform more than it confuses?

10

Am I dense, or can someone explain why this issue needs to be a Constitutional issue? There is nothing in the Constitution about debates, and I can’t think of a good reason to involve the Constitution at all.

11

Oh, why not?

People (including even my Edlyn) seem to revere the ancient scribbles. If scribbling will induce a context of peace and honesty, then I say “scribble on!”

12

You’re not dense, SFSG. All the bills listed at the link I cited earlier seek to fix this problem by amending or enacting federal laws, not by amending the Constitution. I agree with you (and them) that there’s no reason at all to make this a Constitutional amendment: regulating debates is and should be a matter of law, but it need not be made a guiding principle for the framing and interpretation of laws, which is what Constitutional provisions are.

13

Kimstu:

I think a constitutional amendment just might be necessary. Seems to me it could have the effect of forcing presidential candidates to appear at debates with people they’d rather not appear with, thus infringing on their freedom of association…unless it’s a constitutional amendment.

Also, if it’s merely a federal law, it could be easily done away with by a subsequent Congress if a party that doesn’t like the law controls more than half the seats. To repeal an amendment, though, would require more. And the whole purpose of institutionalizing debates in law (stautory or constitutional) would be to take it out of party control.

Chaim Mattis Keller

14

[blink blink] Chaim, did you really mean to say that? Have you noticed that under the current laws, presidential candidates already have to appear at debates with people they’d maybe rather not appear with, as long as those other candidates have at least 15% in the polls? Do you really imagine that lowering that bar will change the effect on participants’ constitutional freedoms?

Perhaps you were referring to the difference between the current system where candidates are “invited” to debate and the OP’s proposed amendment in which candidates “shall” debate? But he goes on to say only that all bona fide candidates “shall be eligible” to participate, so I don’t think the OP meant to imply participation would be mandatory. Anyway, there’s no need to make participation mandatory: candidates are clamoring to be allowed to debate and get their names and faces before the public.

Same goes for pretty much anything else about the campaign process. We probably will want to continue tinkering with the eligibility requirements as campaign and electoral procedures change; debates themselves may fall by the wayside after a while.

Then voters should provide a strong base of support for it that cuts across party lines. I still don’t see how this issue qualifies as a basic principle of governance for making and interpreting laws, which is what a Constitutional provisions generally are.

15

Kimstu:

Indeed I was.

Only if conditions are favorable to them. The best example is the way that the current Democrats and Republicans love debating one another one-on-one, but if a third party who would be more troublesome to one than to another would be in the mix (e.g., Gore would hate to have to face Ralph Nader; to Bush it probably wouldn’t make much difference; the reverse would be true of Pat Buchanan), they might refuse to participate if given the option.

It doesn’t, but there’s one other purpose for enshrining a law in the Constitution rather than making it an ordinary law: if it runs counter to the Constitution, as requiring participation in a debate just might (as per my previous post). That’s why the anti-flag-burning folks always talk about needing an amendment to prevent it. It’s not a basic principle for governance, but it would be unconstitutional as a normal law, so must be an amendment to be valid.

Chaim Mattis Keller

16

Oh, okay, I get it. Well, that brings up a slightly different question: should the debates be mandatory for all qualified candidates? I thought we were just trying to enlarge the window of eligibility.

Even if debates were mandatory, I don’t see that as a serious “freedom of association” issue: after all, Reps and Sens have to attend congressional sessions in company with all sorts of liberal or conservative riffraff depending on your point of view, and nobody complains about rights violations. You may point out that that’s because the congressional setup is specified in the Constitution; but consider that other federal employees also have to do their jobs without choosing their own associates, and that holds during the interview process too. No, I really don’t think we’ve got a major civil liberties issue here, though I defer to the opinion of an actual constitutional lawyer (where’s Jodi?).

17

I do not like the idea for a couple of reasons.

First of all, this would only work in all practicality with a two (or similar small number) party system. Imagine the logistics involved if you had to have a debate with every crack-pot party and fringe loonie who puts up a “Vote for me!” website equal debating time! I won’t deny that would be FUN, mind you, but probably not very practical.

I am a Libertarian, and even MY party’s candidate might or might not be allowed in this process, and either way you go, it’s exclusionary or it’s way too inclusive to do any good.

Secondly, we are branching into freedom of speech issues, aren’t we? I would imagine it would be rather unconstitutional to MAKE someone speak, even if they are running for president.

Of course, I realize that some occupations do not lend themselves to this protection - Witness John Rocker getting fines for unpopular speech. But does the President (or a candidate for public office) also lose rights such as this? Is there a precedent here?

Finally, I think it’s safe to say that even if everyone agreed that it was a good idea, the exact parameters of a proposed ammendment would be so subject to the whims and wants of each party and the people in the p[arty it would never be greed upon.

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 19 hours, 30 minutes and 38 seconds.
4272 cigarettes not smoked, saving $534.06.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 20 hours, 0 minutes.

Visit The Fabulous Forums of Fathom