Public not served by narrow format of debates

Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor

Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor

Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor

Amy Golod
 Staff Representative

Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative

Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310)825-9898

Presidential elections represent an important aspect of American
democracy, but unfortunately, presidential debates no longer do. In
all three presidential debates this year, only Democratic and
Republican candidates were included.

The requirement that candidates must gain 15 percent of the
popular vote in five different national polls to participate
perpetuates the two-party system. This is no surprise, considering
the Commission on Presidential Debates, which sets up the debates
and calls itself “nonpartisan”, is composed of a group
of Democrats and Republicans.

Excluding smaller parties both stifles the voice of those
parties’ supporters and allows the Democrats and Republicans
to establish a narrow set of campaign issues.

Democracy involves giving people a voice in public affairs and
electing individuals who will represent the interests of the
population. The debate should be a forum in which candidates defend
their positions on a host of big and small issues, not just several
traditional election issues.

When the participating parties, namely the Democrats and
Republicans, outline the rules and format they will follow in each
debate, where is the voice of the general public in the
process?

Although third parties may not have a chance at winning the
presidential race, it is conceivable that the arguments they pose
in the debate will encourage candidates to explore a broader
spectrum of issues and could even influence more people to get out
and vote.

Many students feel alienated by the election process and are
tired of hearing the same rhetoric from Republicans and Democrats,
which has led to widespread apathy among young citizens. A new
voice could spark a more lively debate and increase voter
turnout.

Had third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan
participated, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush
would have been forced to expand the range of issues they
addressed, because the minor candidates’ platforms include a
wealth of non-mainstream issues that nonetheless matter to
Americans.

Without significant media coverage, third-party candidates will
never achieve the 15 percent needed to get into the presidential
debates, and will therefore be shut out of the elections and
campaigns ““ unless they are like Ross Perot and have their
own money to burn. This system will perpetually confine the issues
and opinions discussed during the campaigns to the middle of the
road.

But take, for example, Minnesota, where Reform Party candidate
Jesse Ventura won the governorship. Before participating in state
debates, he had only an 8 percent showing in the polls, so clearly,
participation in the debates had a tremendous impact on the
election.

Not only were third-party candidates absent, but moderator Jim
Lehrer failed to consistently ask follow-up questions that would
have forced the candidates to elaborate beyond their practiced
statements.

Lehrer appeared reluctant to challenge either candidate and
failed to spark any spontaneous dialogue. He should have
represented the voice of the public by forcing both candidates to
discuss their positions beyond the repetition of statements
we’ve heard over and over again.

Considering many Americans rely on television for information,
the debates always serve as a way for candidates to be exposed to
the public, but the utility of these debates was limited. This
year’s debates served more as free publicity time than an
opportunity for citizens to learn about and evaluate the
candidates. The public knows little about the candidates and the
candidates apparently know little about the public and its broad
spectrum of ideals and opinions.

Any debate that systematically shuts out voices is undemocratic.
It is time to change the presidential debate system.