Monday, September 06, 2004
Contacts and Sample Letters for CPDContact:
Janet H. Brown - Executive Director CPD
1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW Suite 445
Washington, D.C. 20036
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. - Co-Chair CPD (R)
Hogan & Hartson LLP
555 Thirteenth St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
(Can only be reached by e-mail through Warren Gorrell. Follow the links.)
Paul G. Kirk, Jr. - Co-Chair CPD (D)
Sullivan & Worcester LLP
One Post Office Square
Boston, MA 02109
NOTE: With all e-mails please cc: DBcontactmade@yahoo.com
Letter 1: Ridicule. As long as they mock the politcal process we may as well mock them.
The results of your organizations manipulations of the "debates" over these many years is laughable. America is waking up to the fraud you are perpetrating and tuning out in record numbers. Your mockery of open political debate is a part of the reason that third parties have proliferated and grown in recent years, and I encourage you to continue your ignorant and boorish attempt to control political discourse, as it plays into our hands.
If you do not open your "debates" through realistic criteria to all viable presidential candidates you will only further demonstrate the corrupted nature of your endeavor, and drive more voters to the third parties you are trying to eradicate. The voters of America are fully aware of your ham-handed rigging of the "debates" and the scripted nature of the shallow bipartisan snoozefest you produce.
If you think that anything you are organizing and portraying as "debate" will ever be viewed with the historical reverence of the Lincoln - Douglas debates of 1858, or even the Kennedy - Nixon debate of 1960 you are sadly mistaken. Your commission's silly and foolish formatting has only resulted in further diminishing the audience with every "debate" you put on. In fact according to your own website your commission has never come close to drawing the number of people who crowded around the radio to hear such obscure debates as the Dewey - Stassen debates of 1948 (up to 80 million). Keep up the good work of getting the voice and platforms of the democrats and republicans out to fewer and fewer voters with every election cycle, your efforts provide strength and validity to the third parties.
Letter 2: Soul Appeal. Although spirituality is not my strong suit I thought maybe we could reach their human side. Even they must have one.
As the documentation of the Commission on Presidential Debates' blatant bias and defacto bipartisanship, not nonpartisanship, is brought to light and the public's awareness of the Commission's manipulations grows it is time to look within yourself and ask if your complicity and assistance in the hijacking of our political process is good for your soul?
It may come as a surprise to you to learn that you do not speak for everyone, nor do the candidates you promote through the conspiracy you call "candidate selection." It is not up to you individually or the cabal you call a commission to select nor determine who is a viable presidential candidate. That is for the voters to decide. Your chosen mandate is to produce debates between presidential candidates. Your oppression of multitudes of voters with opinions that differ from yours is unconscionable and I am left to wonder how you will be judged in the here after.
As you do ponder your selection of candidates for the presidential debates please determine if your choices are right with your god and your spiritual beliefs. Regardless of your decision you will demonstrate the nature of your character.
Letter 3: Statistical Analysis. I got a little windy one this one but I used every statistic I could dig up to show how their debates have been a dismal failure. Don't worry I am not "wavering" as I wrote in this letter, I will be voting the Libertarian ticket without reservation.
As a wavering voter, I ask you to relinquish the restrictive criteria you require for candidates, so that myself and many other voters can hear the various opinions held by qualified candidates for president. For all the talk of the Commission on Presidential Debates' desire to educate voters and draw them into the system you have been unable to do so while maintaining your bipartisan stance. The electoral process needs more voices, and in fact demands it. Recent studies show that 35% of registered voters consider themselves independent and as such can not be adequately represented by the two major parties. This is demonstrated by tuning out the presidential debates in larger numbers every year. In 1980 it is estimated that 60% of the nations households watched the debates, and by 2000 that number dropped to 30%.
Our system, dominated by the two major parties has only attracted half of the people of voting age to even resister to vote, and on election day roughly half of those registered actually come out to vote. Of those that do vote some studies show that only about half of them are actually committed to the candidate they voted for. The other half are voting against a candidate or position. What this boils down to is the fact that 10 to 15% of a nation of 290 million are determining the course of the country, and this can not be healthy for democracy.
I agree that too many candidates on a stage can create too much confusion, and hinder a meaningful debate, but it should be noted that in the 2000 presidential primary debates the republicans had six candidates in their debates. In the 2004 presidential primaries the democrats had nine candidates debate without detriment to their constituents. However I don't propose that any person who decides to run for president should be allowed to debate but there is certainly a more fair and equitable system than your current process. There are many restrictions and hurdles built into our political process that are very effective in weeding out candidates who do not receive sufficient support of the voting public. Beginning with petitioning for ballot access.
In every state in the country a third party candidate has to gather far more petition signatures than does a democrat or republican. As you may already know a third party usually has to collect at least double, and often five times as many signatures as does the major parties. Then they have to survive the common place challenges to their petitions, which means the third party has to try collecting up to double the minimum number of signatures in order to be placed on the ballot. To collect this volume of signatures a given candidate must have a large and committed group of supporters to begin with in order to be successful.
If a candidate endures long enough to get on state ballots sufficient to potentially win the electoral votes needed to win the election, that should be the deciding factor in their eligibility for the debates. By the time a candidate qualifies for 270 electoral votes it should be demonstration enough that they have the organizational staff, the financial means, and the volunteer and popular support to wage a meaningful presidential campaign. It should follow that they are qualified to represent their supporters in meaningful debate.
END OF DAY 1 ACTION
Thank you for participating,
Comments: Post a Comment|