Of all the anticipatory scribblings about the upcoming Obama-McCain matchup, what might be most interesting to me is the oft-touted prospect that the two candidates may participate in a substantial series of town hall style debates. I have always been for more debates and fewer ads, as long as the debates are relevant and not simply a means for candidates to lob insults at each other. Giving these two senators the benefit of many doubts, I choose to be optimistic.
(Originally posted at Near Earth Object)
My biggest beef with presidential debates, though, is their exclusiveness as it pertains to third party and independent candidates. We all know the Loop of Irrelevance; a third party candidate can’t get into the debates unless they poll highly enough, but they won’t poll highly enough unless they get into the debates. Clearly, something here has to break in order for sufficient viewpoints to be voiced on the national stage.
Primary debates tend to be more inclusive, and sometimes to a fault. I was all for the continued participation of former senator Mike Gravel in the Democratic debates, until it became totally apparent that he was not adding enough substance to the debate – not that he didn’t have important things to add, but he did so in such an erratic, discourteous way, that he became a burden to bear rather than a voice to heed. The point being that those 90 minutes are precious, and no one wants them wasted by someone who not only has no shot, but has nothing to add.
But if Obama and McCain follow through and do hold a large number of town hall debates, free of the constraints of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a wonderful opportunity opens up to allow dissenting voices join the discussion, and break the Loop of Irrelevance. Now that those 90 minutes will be little less precious, as they will happen more frequently, we can afford to squander a bit.
Here’s how. I propose that the candidates agree to include a set of independent and third party candidates once, at the very first debate. Let Obama and McCain perch on their stools joined by Ralph Nader, Bob Barr (if he is the Libertarian nominee), Cynthia McKinney (if she is the Green nominee) and so forth. (How does one decide which candidates get to join? Perhaps signatures or party membership numbers, but put that aside for now.)
Here’s the twist. If polls following the first debate show an uptick in support for one the independent candidates, say, in the 5 percent range, they get to come back for the next debate. Nobody else. If after the second debate, their numbers fail to move, then that’s it. Do not pass "Go," etc. Kind of like a reality show, when you think about it, only, you know, important.
This seems to me to be a fair way to acknowledge that not every nutjob with a "political party" deserves a place on a stage next to viable candidates, but nor should we be excluding serious people with real ideas and substantial support. Let them debate, but if they fail to move the public, lock them out for next time.
Of course, for the major party candidates to agree to this, they’d have to feel that they have something to gain, and unless they think the balance of newbies on the stage tilt toward the other guy’s political persuasion, they probably won’t sign off. So what then? The only thing to do is for many, many people to ask them.
So get on their websites, hop on their MySpace pages (if you can keep from throwing up), and call up the campaigns, and tell them you want to give some other folks just one fair shot.