That’s it, really. Not much more explanation needed.
But the league ran MUCH better debates. The moderators (if memory serves) were reporters from competing outlets. Compare that to, say, MSNBC stocking a panel with its own hosts and worrying about ratings. They will be overly deferential to the candidates to avoid alienating them.
If you want a debate focused on issues, bring back the League of Women Voters. No more bipartisan negotiations with the press.
(Hat tip to Elwood, former front-pager at Blue Hampshire.)
Please share widely!
jconway says
He’s far more credible than Donald Trump, he’s on the ballot in 50 states, and he is polling at 11% when he’s included. At least have a third party undercard to the main event, if CNN can devote precious time to Huckabee vs Jindal, surely they can have Gary Johnson and Jill Stein discuss their far more credible ideas for the future.
More choices are better in a democracy. And I say this as someone committing to vote for Hillary in the general, but I think it’s worth it for the country and world to see there are voices besides Trump’s that are out there running credible campaigns.
scott12mass says
Couldn’t have said it better.
Christopher says
…that the debates should include anyone on the ballot either in all 50 states, or at least enough of the right states to reach 270.
sabutai says
But when you talk to citizens in many other countries where that happens, they often dislike that. I like what some places do: have 1 everybody-in debate, and a top two debate.
I don’t know if I want to forestall Clinton’s chance to make her point because Jill Stein wants to…do whatever it is that she does.
jconway says
We do that in Massachusetts for governors races. I remember the one where Romney debated Howell, Stein, Johnson and O’Brien.
JimC says
I’d want a higher viability threshold.
Christopher says
When they deprive someone an opportunity to get their message out it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t remember why we moved away from this — perhaps someone can refresh my memory of how we landed where we are.
JimC says
But i think campaigns began negotiating with networks, and the League faded away.
johntmay says
Here is the history of the league’s role in debates.
But the cynic in me views the aligning of the parties in the new winner take all political world as not wanting serious debates, just bread and circus for hoi polli and the appearance of debate, no different from “professional wrestling”.
If corporate networks can control the debates, the commentators, the questions permitted, all the better for them and their select candidates in either party.
jconway says
Paraphrased from the wiki entry:
The CPD was created in 1987 by Paul Kirk and his RNC counterpart explicitly
to shut the two parties out of the system. The League of Women Voters withdrew when Bush and Dukakis made a deal about the podium size, panelists, and format without consulting with the League which left its partnership with the CPD which has had a monopoly ever since. It’s itneresting to see if Gary Johnson’s suit is successful, but I’m sure legally there is little we can do to stop it.
fredrichlariccia says
As a former member of the Wakefield League of Women Voters lol (yes, they used to accept male members)… I wholeheartedly support a return to League sponsored debates. Nationally, statewide and locally.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Jasiu says
I thought I replied to this earlier, but the comment isn’t here.
Anyway, what LWV doesn’t currently accept male members? My local one certainly does.
Peter Porcupine says
.
stomv says
is that if LWV hosts, there’s no exclusivity. That means I don’t need to come up with a different app or streaming strategy each week just to see the dang thing.
If it’s a public stream, we can watch it hosted by multiple sources without worrying about copyright nonsense.