Reviews for No Debate: How the Two Major Parties Secretly Ruin the Presidential Debates

The average rating for No Debate: How the Two Major Parties Secretly Ruin the Presidential Debates based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-10-19 00:00:00 Lori Shiffman In case you were wondering....yes, it's all rigged. In the particular case of the televised presidential debates discussed in this short book, the rigging is done in a thoroughly bipartisan manner by the Commission on Presidential Debates in cooperation with the Republican and Democratic party elites and the two party candidates. The debates are specifically designed to exclude third party candidates. Everything from the background colors on stage to the format to the scope of the questions and the choice of moderators--all is negotiated long in advance. 1986 was the year the Democratic and Republican parties signed an agreement to jointly takeover debate sponsorship via a 'non-profit' organization dubbed the Commission on Presidential Debates to be co-chaired by the respective party chairmen. There is no third party representation on the CPD. As League president Neuman wrote the CPD "...provide the candidates with the safest, most risk-free debate option." There is lots of fascinating history here. Until 1986 the presidential debates had been sponsored by the completely independent League of Women Voters. But the League proved too independent! The independent League of Women Voters sponsored the televised presidential debates between 1976 and 1984. In 1984 Reagan and Mondale rejected 68 out of 71 proposed moderators. League head Nancy Newman went public about the charade: 'They just got rid of panelists who would ask intelligent questions.' For the second debate the public outcry and League pressure forced the candidates to accept the League's choice of moderators. When President Jimmy Carter refused to debate Ronald Reagan, the League hosted a presidential debate between third party candidate John B. Anderson and Republican Ronald Reagan. It drew over 55 million viewers. The inclusion of an independent candidate (and the positive effect on Anderson's poll standings) signaled the beginning of the end for League-sponsored debates. By 1986 the two major parties had staged their 'hostile takeover', supplanting the League with the CPD, which is packed with old party insiders and political hacks. Alan Simpson (a member of the CPD board) said with admirable clarity: 'The purpose of the [debate] commission, it seems to me, is to try to preserve the two party system that works very well, and if you like the mutiparty system, then go to Sri Lanka and India and Indonesia and get picking around it instead of all this ethereal crap....it's obvious that independent candidates mess things up.' Skilled political operatives do their utmost to negotiate debate terms that favor their candidates. Bill Clinton deliberately scheduled the last two 1996 debates with Bob Dole opposite the major league baseball playoffs. "After the election, Chris Matthews asked representatives of the Clinton campaign 'Why didn't you have the debates when people were watching...' With cynical candor, George Stephanopolous replied 'Because we didn't want them to pay attention...We wanted the debates to be a nonevent'." But most of all, the CPD--and our national and state election laws--are designed to make third party challenges next to impossible. The US has the most anti third party ballot access laws of any democracy in the world. The number of signatures required for a party to get on the presidential ballot in California--150,000--exceeds the signatures required in Canada, Australia and all the European countries combined. An artificial threshold of 15% in the polls is set for inclusion in the debates--a nearly impossible task since third party candidates get next to no media attention. Pat Buchanan said, 'I got more coverage when my latest book was published than I did when I was running for president.' Commented Jesse Jackson on 3ed party candidate Ross Perot's exclusion from the 1996 debates: 'There's something that stinks about this. It's fundamentally undemocratic. If this group can arbitrarily rule that a billionaire who gets 20 million votes and qualifies for $30 million in election funds can't participate then God help the rest of us.' In a year when the two major party candidates are disliked and distrusted by the vast majority of American voters and when two quite plausible third party candidates (Libertarian Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Green Party) are on the ballot most states their exclusion from the debates seems a particular travesty. The founding fathers warned us against political parties. Here is George Washington: I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally...The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge...is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.All I can do is to say "Amen" to the Reverend Jackson's "God help the rest of us."

Review # 2 was written on 2008-08-21 00:00:00 Craig Johnson Very thorough, even-tempered, academic treatment of the cynical, democracy-thwarting BIpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD was created in 1988 to replace presidential debate sponsorship from the NONpartisan League of Women Voters. Their stated mission was to institutionalize the debates (which the League had already begun to accomplish) and to support the two-party system. The latter goal, at then expense of voters and democracy itself, has largely been achieved, as it agrees to whatever schedule, "debate" format(actually joint press conference), and bland, non-challenging moderator suggested by the major-party nominees' campaigns. Perot was allowed to participate in 1992 because Bush Sr. wanted him there (when Perot suspended his campaign in July of '92, Clinton's poll numbers shot up 14%, but Bush rose only 3%; Perot resumed his campaign at the end of Sept.). I gave only 3 stars here because the cleverly-titled "No Debate" doesn't make for scintillating reading. That said, it is geometrically more exciting and informative than the stilted quadrennial joint press conferences perpetrated by the CPD, mainstream media, the duopolistic Republican and Democratic "parties" (yee-hah!), and the major-party candidates themselves, all of whom robotically go about honoring the chore of these highly-staged presentations while trying to shield themselves from answering the toughest, most substantial questions from real members of the public. Nader and Buchanan would have surely expanded the range of topics in 2000. This year, third-party candidates from the right and left, all of whom were opposed to the wars and the US$700bn "bail-out," clearly would have also shifted the debate terrain. But neither of the major parties nor the CPD are interested in real democracy breaking out.