Opening the Debates Will Give Us Better Candidates and a More Involved Citizenry.

by Kyla Jagger Neilan

In the 1990s, most of the nation was saturated in the satisfaction of routine prosperity, technological advances, and internal peace. Our contentment, however, served only to blind us to domestic and foreign degeneration. The last decade was spent blatantly ignoring widespread poverty, hunger, and environmental destruction. In a period of technological revolution, fossil fuels remained the main energy source.  Campaigns of waging peace failed and overseas violence escalated.  The world's leading superpower could not reduce drug prices sufficiently to truly combat disease in the third world. The turn of the century brought a disputed election, an economic downturn, and September 11th.  It's also sparked a renewed civic interest.  Americans are no longer content. The youth, especially, have the potential of building upon the accomplishments of their parents in the '60s and '70s.

We are ready to carry out now what was impossible then. First, though, we need a truly energized and engaged citizenry. We should start by bringing elections back to the people.  A huge turnoff in the 2000 presidential election was the debates. They were stiff, constrained by too many rules, and based on personality, not policy. Nothing new came out. Candidates were too careful, too worried about flubbing sound bites than articulating their ideas. Instead of gaining interest, viewership decreased for each successive debate.  It doesn't have to be like this.

There are a few basic changes that must be made, and made now, in an off-election year, to make debates a deciding factor in elections again.

First, they must be publicly, or at least objectively, funded and run. They must be nonpartisan. Bipartisanship doesn't cut it anymore rule-by-two is only marginally better than rule-by-one.  The current Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the national Republican and Democratic parties, to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners." Their policy of exclusion of third party candidates and strict rules regarding types of questions, time limits, and no direct addresses between candidates, however, only limit information and end up hurting the candidates themselves, as viewers get bored and turn them off. 

Including legitimate third party candidates is not throwing the election or opening it for spoilers. Candidates on the ballot in enough states to theoretically be able to win the election through the electoral college will ensure a broader range of topics discussed as each brings in their own specialties. The people will get a better understanding of all candidates because they'd be forced to delve into deeper depth to justify and set apart their own positions. Too often, main party runners feel they are entitled to the office merely because of their party backing. They do not want to debate with candidates who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking chances and passionately holding positions.  But this is not their election, and if they are to win votes, they ought to actually earn them.

A party nomination does not entitle a person to the presidency. The financial backing of huge lobbying firms and corporations does not entitle a person to the presidency. Candidates should have to prove themselves as individuals against other dynamic individuals. Then, the people can effectively base their votes on how they feel a candidate will perform in office. The people are more intelligent than this current system allows.  A debate that invites all viable candidates, asks tough questions (with tougher, pointed follow-ups), and has an objective, no-nonsense reporter to moderate is something people want to see.

Most Americans are civic-minded enough to tune in to the debates but get bored early and tune out.  The past election was a perfect example. The Republican primaries were exciting, engaged, and spontaneous. Each candidate had their own vision and fought for it. They rebutted each other with political attacks that bordered on mudslinging.  They used past performance records to build themselves up or bring the others down. Sure it got dirty, but by the end everyone knew where and how strongly each candidate stood.  There was none of that in the debates between Gore and Bush. The questions covered the surface only and were agreed upon beforehand, so each had prepared speeches memorized. There was no parleying back and forth, no passionate arguments about positions, lest a section of the electorate be offended, and no real debate. Somehow, the Democratic and Republican candidates found less to disagree with than they had within their own parties. 

An election should be between people who have such strong visions that they feel they must lead the country to that end.  It is then up to the citizens to decide whether they agree.  It is imperative that a flexible, open, and meaningful debate be set up for the next election. And it should be the candidates themselves who call for it: if a candidate has views worthy enough to mean he or she deserves the presidency, that person should look forward to the opportunity to prove where he or she stands out.

Kyla Jagger Neilan is a student from New Jersey.