This week: No to Perot

A commission planning for the presidential debates recommended that Perot and all other third parties be excluded from the events. Some people feel that only candidates with a "realistic chance" should be allowed to participate. Others contend that this attitude prevents a third party candidate from entering the national political scene.

What do you think? Was the commission wise in its decision to keep the debates narrowly focused? Or have they steered the political process in a direction that is harmful for democracy?

Read what others have said so far, and then tell us what you think.

For past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

Twinfinity: Ooh! The first comment!

This is the most overtly conspiratorial move I've seen the government make. "Harmful for democracy" is a mild description. The debates -- if you can call them that -- are a media event, and media presence is everything in the Presidential race. By elbowing Perot (and Nader and handfuls of others, especially Libertarian Harry Browne) out of the show, the United States government is delivering an official endorsement to the Republican and Democrat candidates and officially disqualifying all other candidates, regardless whether they qualify for ballot access (as at least Browne does, in all 50 states and D.C.) or matching funds. AND this smells of censorship. The whole thing is sick.

This may sound paranoid, but think: What is the for-the-most-part-politically-unversed public perception of this move? Government legitimization of already-legitimate (?) candidates, and de-legitimization of all others. Will most people notice the shadow of Big Brother?

Run, do not click, to Project Vote Smart for more information about the candidates than you'll ever get from these "debate" circuses.

TBlackmore: I believe Ross Perot really could solve the problems with the American economy. I'm not so sure about the amount of turmoil he would create in solving those problems.

hemerson: Perot who? Harry Browne dominates the internet, he is taking over talk radio, and the interstates are next! (See the Harry Browne billboard at the home page of the Oklahoma Libertarians.) You can't keep a good man down, commissioners!

campaneb: Ross Perot says he's the grain of sand which irritates the oyster that creates the pearl. Actually, he's the gnat who irritates the voter. We are not being shortchanged by Perot not participating in the debates. He had his chance in 1992 and failed his overly trusting constituency by chickening-out when he's saw that he might actually win the race (or throw it to the house) as a result of the "grass roots volunteer groundswell which formed around his candidacy. Being the autocrat that he is, he realized that he could not controll this mob rule and he'd better put it into check befor he found himself inconveniently living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. No, it's going to be better to watch the slaughter of the old age innocents, the formal death knell to the WWII generation who have been hanging on to their nostalgic view of the past, where love, loyalty and livelihood were one and the same. This will all be put to rest by the last white boy from Hope. Not only will the torch be finally passed, it'll probably be extinguished in the process. Open your Swiss banking acounts, now, or forever hold your peace.

dantk: Of course Perot should debate. Who is telling us that we cannot hear the views of any candidate? Ok, I grant you, Perot probably does not have all his dogs barking, but Dole is an old Washington dealmaker who has kissed more ass and garnered more favors than anyone in politics today. Clinton is clearly in over his head. Perhaps it is time to put a real businessman in a position of power. Replace all those diplomats with savvy businesspeople who's sole mission is to increase US business prospects all over the world. Perot got me in the last election when he stated he would stop most foreign aid. Granted the third world countries are in desperate need of our charity but......4 TRILLION AND COUNTING!!!!!!! uh, get the drift. Lets get our own house in order before offering to help others. Oh, by the way. Thirty three large and medium sized tech and manufacturing companies who used to call Connecticut their home left that sinking ship an Agree/Disagree? [email protected] Let me know, but only intelligent responses please. And be patient, Working full time while completing my BS (also full time) leaves me with no free time ;)

wstrouts: someone on this "commission" (just who was it that commissioned them?) needs to read OUR constitution, in particular, the first amendment !

ouiknee: Anybody who is running for office should have the right to participate in the debates.

bales: Perot befouled himself last election and spread it over the entire Nation by his Cowardly QUITIING at a time that allowed the present incombent to steal the Office. Whatever his ideas, he has nulified them as a political foul-up. We have a system based on TWO PARTIES or as one would put it, 2 persons with alternates attached (ie: vice Presidents). Any thing else under this system destroys its capaacity to be a stable system. If everyone wants multiple parties, then we/they MUST develope a new or other system of politics, both national and in the lesser GOVERNMENTS (ie: State, County, City, etc.) enough said.

vidar: The presidential debates should be a means by which the public come to know what the philosophical underpinnings of the candidates are, and how these will influence their government. Instead, they have become the bully pulpit of the Status Quo. ALL candidates who meet the criteria set by the Committee on Presidential Debates should be allowed. The Committee decided to throw out its own criteria and restrict inclusion to only the "two major parties" saying that "if we allowed all candidates into the debates, there would be over 100 participants." The fact is that only 4 candidates meet there criteria. The only one who stands for anything other than a refined Status Quo is HARRY BROWN of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY The other three are Perot Clinton and Dole

Applecheeks: I think if Perot is included that ALL of the other candidates should be included, also. There is absolutely No way that the little demigog will EVER be elected president of anything other than his own company, so why should we be subjected to his boring opinions when it would be way more interesting listening to , say, Ralph Nader (Green Party), or some of the other minor candidates.

xprof: Personally, I don't care what happens with regard to Mr. Perot. But as I understand the rules, there is no legitimate reason to exclude him from the debates and his exclusion is therefore unfair and unacceptable. The bipartisan commission should be replaced with a truly non-partisan commission, even if we have to appoint people from another country.

tracyo: No matter what you may think of Perot, he should be allowed in the debates, and I personally would like to hear what he has to say. Would some of you don't want to listen to him because he quit in 92 feel differently if it was another qualified candidate? Point it, doesn't matter if it's Perot or anyone else, as a qualified candidate his views should be heard. Besides, I think one of this countries biggest problems is that it is a "two party" system with each side trying to remain as far away from the other as possible instead of being willing to find common ground. A third party candidate like Perot would change the focus of the campaigns to the real issues rather than a "what side are you on" circus.

cwest: Anyone participating in any electoral campaign should have the right to be in a debate. You always need as many bodies w/voices as possible to keep a debate interesting. What on earth is happening to our society!

Twinfinity: The very phrasing of this survey question obscures the deeper issue: Are these "debates" useful at all? If they were real debates, forensic face-offs with the purpose of directly answering the questions asked, they'd be worth something to the voter. But -- has anyone noticed this? -- I haven't seen a straight response to a single question in any recent Presidential debate, except perhaps from Mr. Perot (who, as one of the outsiders to the Rep-Dem deadlock, has an interest in addressing issues head-on). From the Two Parties, the answers are all spin. No substance.

As for the assertion that the U.S. government is inherently a two-party system, I must ask where that's written into law. There are quite a few folks in public office who are not Republican or Democrat. If the government is falling apart, it's not because third parties are trying to break the two-party chokehold.

smouer: No, Perot is irrelevant and becoming more so. And he has railroaded his own candidacy through his party, refusing to debate any challengers himself,

Apel: First, the commission *itself* was partisan - for it to have been impartial, it should have been composed of independant non-partisan members -- or members of each registered American political party. The fact that the two people who made this decision are themselves member of the two most powerful political parties should tell us something. Second, using the standard of "reasonable chance" is ludicrous. We all know Dole doesn't stand a chance. The media has been feeding us that 'poll' since before his nomination. OK - so the only candidate with a reasonable chance of winning is Clinton. Does that mean that the nation wouldn't benefit from having three (or four, or five) viable candidates debating the important issues? Which brings me to.... Third - the inclusion of multiple candidates would force the discussion of issues that threaten the major parties. On their own, will either Clinton or Dole bring up cutting Corporate Welfare? Hell, no. But Nader will. Browne would bring up legalizing drugs. And that would force them to at least talk about these things! Fourth, without input from anyone outside the 'inner sanctum' of major-party politics, each debate will be a staged, rehearsed, piece of unwatchable crap. Did you make it through the Conventions? Why on Earth would anyone *want* to watch a debate if all the answers are known in advance, and the most important issues are sidestepped anyway? But (the major parties say) there are 200 people registered as Presidential candidates! They can't all debate! Here's my solution (although no one in power asked me, and it won't have an effect on this election, anyway): Allow anyone with ballot status in enough states to win a sufficient number of electoral votes that they *could* win to paticipate. Disregard 'poll' figures. This would allow Clinton, Dole, Perot, Browne, and Nader to debate. This would be good for the nation, and would be more fun to watch. And if the end result was Clinton sliding back to the left, that's even better!

fripro: The commission was very unwise in its decision to keep the debates narrowly focused? Or have they have steered the political process in a direction that is harmful for democracy?

Perot is a viable canidate--but the Democrats and Republicians do not want a third party, I DO in Fact I think they ought to replace one or both of the present parties,, as they think alike.

Tom Fairbairn

naving: If Perot is allowed to participate in the debates, that means ay tom dick or harry with presidential aspirations is. SO why stop at Perot? Why not increase the debate platform to encompass all the 3rd parties??? I mean, then we will have over 50 people debating. Bottom line: Perot does not meet the requirments (ie public support) to merit him being in the debate.

dr_disco: In this election I feel that any one can win! This is the land of the free but we still put restrictions on the most minor things. I feel that Perot, even though I do not agree with him, has a party that is a quote real party and there fore is a canadate. These debates are for us the citizans to hear their view no matter what party. Haven't we seen for the past that any one can win due to external factors that no one knows. To be a fair election we must let him speak. As for Dole I feel it is an insult. I am a Republican and find it insulting that they have lost touch with the voters. Unless they change it will be there downfall!

Mur: I don't think it is a matter of Perot or not to Perot. I am not voting for Perot, but I do think that he and Nader and all the others should be in the debate. We all know that either Clinton or Dole will win, but the debate is there to discuss the issues. Perhaps Nader will make a point that will make Clinton or Dole think about the issue in a way they hadn't before, or perhaps he'll ask a question that cannot be answered. I think that a debate is for us to find out what a candidate will do in a situation or how they feel on an issue -- not who has the biggest chance of winning.

RFester: First, the "debates" are not truly debates in the Lincoln-Douglas, Oxford Union sense of the word./ What the Commission has given us are two photo-ops where President CLinton and Senator Doles will appear together. Each doubtless has nine or ten cliche-filled answers ready to be tacked on to whatever question comes up. Appearance is more important than substance. A lot of smoke, very little heat.

What would be nice would be to invite all Presidential candidates whose names appear on all 50 state ballotts. Or to be generous, let's say on 40 of the fifty ballots. The Commission has denied Perot a spot on the debates because they have concluded that he has no realistic chance to win. That is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? One cannot win without coverage, but one is not covered unless he has a chance to win...

But why Perot is automatically the third choice is beyond me. What about the libertarians? The socialists? The Green Party? Why must there be a monopoly of insiders? Why must the foxes guard the chicken house?

What we need are true alternatives. To say that Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are the best availabale candidates the Democrats and Republicans have is itself a cry to broaden participation. It is just too scary.

vette: Perot should participate in the debates. Ross Perot received nearly 20 million votes in 1992. If the rule is on candidates with a legitimate chance to win can participate, then Bob Dole should be excluded. Bill Clinton could then debate himself...Perot will if nothing else bring the real issues to the table. Bob Dole should be ashamed of himself.

Rpoole: Who's to say, who and who doesn't have the right to speak their mind.....For i'm only 15 i'm not too aware of "political debates" but i do know that EVERYONE (Perot or not) has the right to stand up...and say what their mind is thinking.

Nanda: Democratic debate should be open to all candidates, not just the ones rich enough to get into the mainstream news. We need to hear everybody's views. I think the powers that be have already selected Clinton to be president, anyway. Why else would they put such a sorry candidate as Dole as his competitor. It's all a game. They all talk about reallocating federal dollars, yet if they just spent all of their campaign dollars on education, health care, and job training, they'd get free publicity and all of our nation's budgetary problems would be resolved.

BillyD: Ross Perot is a lunatic. He seems to have a mental problem, his fixation on George Bush in the 1992 election for example. Anyone who seriously thinks he can lead this country should have thier head examined along with him! He may have built a business empire, but that doesn't automatical make him qualified to lead a world super power. If he wants to do something good for America, have him pay off the national debt and then we will rename a state in his honor. How does the Distirict of Perot strike you?

PGray: May I ask how this country is still a country...It should of been in Bankruptcy years ago...and do you know the longer we run this Country in the red , the easier it is for another Country to come in and buy our country out and then Guess What??? There goes all of our freedoms, So someone best put a president in office who can and Will balance the budget before the Russians owns all of us....Now who would like that????Actually maybe everyone as they are already succombing to the unfair rulings of evey right we have ever had, Including but not limited to the Fact that every Presidential Candidate should have equal every thing, Actually I personally feel that a President should have to work for whatever minimum wage is that way Only the ones that really want to help the Country and the People would be running in the first place....Not the money Hungry Politicians that we have today.....Tell can you write a check on an account that is even overdrawn by $10.00...Well you can but take into consider

ralphb: On the one hand, every candidate should be able to make their point in a forum like a debate. On the other hand, these debates are privately sponsored and some rules need to be set, or precious little useful information wil ever come out it. Also, if the criterion is "has a reasonable chance to get elected", then why is Bob Dole included? :) In this case, Perot realistically has NO chance of carrying even a single state, much less the election. Everyone has heard his schtick before, and most of us are frankly tired of hearing it. I support the decision to exclude Perot and the other minor candidates. Perhaps the criterion should be that the candidate should be in contention for at least one state's electoral votes before being included.

EbenF: I agree that Ross Perot (ol' Big Ears himself) my not be playing with a full deck of cards but when you have as much money as he does, the term is "eccentric" not crazy. He is crazy as a FOX in a Chicken coop. As an informed voter, I feel that every "qualified" candidate should have equal chance to debate the other "qualified" candidate about the issues that concern the people of the USA. We may disagree with what a candidate says, but we must defend to the death their right to say what they stand for and each others rights to have our own say. I know that I may be idealisitic in this point of view, but after seeing what other, third world countries have for governments and personal rights, we have a system that compares to none on our personal liberties and freedom. No one small committee of idiotic, political hacks should be able to restrict the rights of any QUALIFIED?" candidate from debating his rivals for high office.

AlMiller: Ross Perot deserves credit for suing the debate commission over his exclusion. The whole idea of a debate between only the top two candidates without the viewpoints of third party candidates who are qualified on the ballots in all 50 states, is proof that democracy longer exists in this country. If a candidate is actively running for president and has made the effort to run in every state, this candidate -- in a truly democratic system -- has a chance of winning. We The People have been cheated out of the democratic process by a decree from a non-elected commission that has arbitrarily decided that election is a two-way race.

Harry Brown of the Libertarian Party and Ross Perot would each offer provocative viewpoints on the issues that both Clinton and Dole don't want to deal with. A good example is the fact that the "War On Drugs" is a totally counterproductive waste of taxpayer money. The television viewers would be presented with an argument that is so logical, that both Clinton and Dole might have to rethink about their uninspired stands on the issue.

Once again, status quo politicians get their way, and the people who vote for them are the losers.

drjuds: Actually, I think that all legitimate candidates should have at least one debate with the Dems and Reps. It would help address issues that each party seems to neglect or shove under the rug.

Empiror: I just want to state that Mr. Dole is afraid of Perot, and he should be. I too am a Republican, but Bob Dole doesn't fit the image of a U.S. pres- idential candidate. I'll be voting for Perot just because he is different from the 'norm' in politics.

RKPiech: Let him and anyone who is on the ballot debate if they so desire. This is not Amerika! There is too much going on in the background that we the public do not know about. Let us take back the power!