By: Miranda West
The recent decision to bar H. Ross Perot from the presidential debates has created an uproar from those opposed to a commission that appears to favor the two party system. The Commission on Presidential Debates, which made the decision on September 17th to exclude Perot from the debates, was set up in the late 1980s to act as a nonpartisan commission which would exist solely for the purpose of sponsoring the presidential debates. The commission`s ten member board is made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans who make the final decision on who is permitted to participate in the debates that are sponsored by the commission. Despite the criticism the decision has received, the commission was correct in keeping Perot out of the debates.
The commission closely studied the situation and made a fair decision to allow only the major party candidates to participate. This decision did not come as a result of a biased or partisan commission as many seem to think. In order to determine whether Perot would be allowed to debate, the commission conducted a survey on Perot`s chances of winning. The criteria for participating in presidential debates, established by the commission prior to this event, includes being on the ballot, having organizations in all fifty states, and being a viable candidate. Since Perot has fulfilled the first two requisites, the question of his electability was brought into question by the commission. From the survey that the commission conducted it was determined that Perot has no realistic chance of winning. He, in fact, has no chance of even obtaining an electoral majority in a single state. The decision did not result from a desire to keep presidential debates limited to solely two parties; nor was it a decision to keep third party candidates out of the debates permanently. Rather, it was a means of keeping the debates more meaningful and structured.
Because Perot was allowed to participate in the 1992 debates, many are wondering why he was kept out this year; some are even speculating that it is due to the Democratic and Republican Party`s fear of Perot cutting in to major party votes. This, though, is not the case. In 1992 the commission determined that Perot's chances were "unlikely" but not unrealistic. In the 1992 election Perot indeed received 19 percent of the popular vote and finished second in one state, Maine, behind Bill Clinton. This time around Perot is considerably less popular. His support is presently only one third of what it was in 1992. If he failed to obtain any electoral votes in the 1992 election when his popularity was at its peak, than there is no chance of him making a large contribution to the campaign or subsequently, the debates of the 1996 election. Further, in 1992 both candidates, George Bush and Bill Clinton, favored Perot's participation in the debates. This year the support for a third party contribution by the opposing, viable candidates is not nearly as strong. The circumstances of this years election as opposed to the 1992 election differ so greatly that it allows for justification of the commission's decision.
This decision has set a valuable precedent in determining who will be allowed to participate in future debates. With over 200 declared candidates on the ballot, it is necessary for the commission to draw up a set of strict guidelines. Viability of a candidate is a prime way to sort out the potentials from the mere hopefuls. No one is in an uproar about smaller parties being barred from the debate. Nor is anyone suggesting that all 200 candidates be allowed to debate. The idea seems preposterous. Such a system would be ineffective and counterproductive. No good could come of a debate between hundreds of candidates. A candidates chances of winning are the best way to measure the candidates eligibility in the presidential debates. Why should the rules be any different for Perot?
Perot`s participation in the debates would be a serious distraction to an intense discussion of relative topics. Many Americans use the presidential debates to separate the politician from the issues. The presence of an invalid candidate at the debates would be a waste of time as well as a diversion from the real issues at hand. A one on one debate between Dole and Clinton is the best way to determine where each candidate stands on the issues that are important to the American people. The disruption that an invalid third party candidate would make could cause irreparable harm to both the significance and necessity of the debates.
The commission was right in its decision to keep the debate limited to Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. The situation was evaluated in a fair and responsible manner, setting a precedent that can be applied to future debates and elections. Perot now needs to accept the fact that although money can buy a surplus of infomercials and fancy campaign gimmicks, there are some things that it just can`t touch. MR