The Two Party Fortress: Keeping Diversity Out of Political Debates

America fondly remembers third party candidates of the past, in hopes that someone on their particular ballot can match their charisma and idealism. There is nothing that Americans wouldn't give to have a candidate like Ross Perot run again, given his quirky style, billions of dollars, and ability to relate to the average American in his unfiltered conversational style. Voters don't even need a Perot on the presidential ticket. They would take someone with independence and candor on their town board, state legislature, or Congressional delegation. Where have all the delightfully crazy independents gone?

They are still around, but local media, the Democrats, and the Republicans have done a great job of stifling choice or debate in American elections. Candidates from the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Reform Party, among many others, still are able to poll well against members of the two parties. Why don't we hear about them? Because the media and those stuck in the two-party mind set seem convinced that if voters get too many choices, they won't know what to do. This novel perversion of logic, that too many choices and too much democracy would lead to disaster at the ballot box, mask the reason why third parties are important. They question our preconceived notions about politics, ingrained within us since our childhood by the political leanings of our parents and communities.

The best example in 2006 of how the media shuts out third parties comes from my home state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin, one of the battleground states in the 2004 election, features two gubernatorial candidates that are beleaguered by controversy. Incumbent Democratic governor Jim Doyle has a number of different allegations against him on the stove, including questionable dealings by administrative staff over state contracts. However, the challenger, Republican Representative Mark Green, has tried unsuccessfully since July to use money from national PACs for his gubernatorial campaign. Green Party candidate Nelson Eisman offers a scandal free, progressive solution to the state's ethics problems. As well, Eisman embodies the progressive background of Wisconsin, with a program of clean energy development, stem cell research, and improved public education.

Why have so few people in Wisconsin heard of Eisman? There are two compelling reasons for this. Most state and national polls don't include Eisman's name, with the exception of the St. Norbert/Wisconsin Public Radio poll, and often have him listed under the Other category. As well, Eisman was not included in any of the three statewide televised debates, two of them sponsored by the poorly named We the People forum. We the People stated their reason for not allowing Eisman to debate, which was that Eisman's poll numbers were insufficient for his inclusion. As we can see, the polls are the chicken and the debates are the egg. Unless we get a new batch of chickens, we are in serious trouble on every Election Day for the foreseeable future.

As someone who has watched many of the debates nationwide on CSPAN, I can tell you that most debates do not include third party candidates. Even those that do include third party candidates do a poor job of providing even time for all the candidates to respond to questions. For example, I recently watched the final gubernatorial debate in Massachusetts, featuring all four candidates on the ballot for November 7th. While this sounds like a noble effort by the Bay State to ensure a fair fight for third parties, the poor moderation during the debate made it impossible for the two independent candidates to make their points. As soon as independent Christy Mihos or Green Party candidate Grace Ross would try to make a point, the moderator would jump in to say that everyone would get their respective time to ask each other questions. While many see a botched debate as better than no debate at all, I can't help but wonder if a botched debate does more damage to third parties because they end up looking like the child asking for dessert before finishing dinner.

Yes, there are third party candidates making a mark despite the media's utter indifference to those outside the two party paradigm. Joe Lieberman looks like he will win his Connecticut Senate race as an independent, but he is only running a third party campaign because his party didn't want him anymore. Kinky Friedman is running great guns in the Texas gubernatorial race, though he is still third in polling. Friedman is a well renowned novelist, singer, and speaker, so it is no surprise that he will probably get his share of votes in the big state of Texas. Where have the Ross Perots and the Ralph Naders gone? They are still around but the media has raised its shields against an all-out assault from the disaffected masses, looking for a non-traditional solution to their political problems. Unless you have Perot's money, Jesse Ventura's fame, or Ralph Nader's considerable appeal to college age voters, you don't have a chance to force your way to the media fore front.

Nelson Eisman offered his own responses to the questions asked at the We the People debates. One example of this is at: http://voteeisman.org/answers

As well, the Massachusetts debate I referenced earlier can be found at: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/special_edition/BO28758/