Open the Debates

As we close in on September, we inch closer to those pathetic drawn out scripted conversations that pose as presidential debates in the good old USA.

On those nights I don't need to take any sleeping medication or eat turkey. I turn on the debate and yawn away.

The Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson, is fighting for the opportunity to get in the 2016 debates. Last time we had three people in the debates was in the 1992 election when H Ross Perot stuck his nose in and out of the race. We got Bill Clinton that year, sad to say.Yes,  the least unpopular candidate won.  Democracy lost.

The Federal Commission on debates has a rule that a candidate must poll at 15% nationally in order to get in the debates.

So, how do you poll at 15% when you have a corporate owned and controlled media that won't cover you?

In a positive note, at least the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are getting some minor coverage in the corporate press. I might see them mentioned at least once a week.

And so it goes, we get this pathetic form of circular logic that keeps the debates limited, emasculated, and boring.

So, how should debate participation be determined? That is simple and easier than making a PB and J sandwich. (OK. I've seen that messed up.  I asked for grape jelly and they gave me strawberry.  I'm allergic to strawberries.)

The rule is very simple: Is the candidate on enough state ballots for a Constitutional Convention. (I believe the number is either 34 or 38.) Got 38? In the debate. It's that easy.

That would open the debates up immensely. In the 2012 election season we would have seen the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Party candidates squaring off. I believe that in 2012 the Socialist Party USA would have been in the mix as well.

Let's face the facts: The debates are the least democratic part of this whole charade that we go through. And in this current election season, people are clamouring for something different than the same old same old.

We need to force a change of the rules so that we have more democratic debates.

And BTW: By getting more parties in the debates, we force the capitalist press to cover more parties than the Democrats and Republicans.

Who knows, given the popularity of socialism among the 18-30 and under 49 crowd, we might just get a socialist in the mix. Can you picture the corporate media trying to cover a socialist that tells them constantly that they are getting socialism all wrong? Or that Clinton is a capitalist and not a socialist?

Who knows, people might just watch the debates. And vote even.

But maybe that's the whole purpose of the debates – to turn people off so they don't vote.

But then we have to ask the press, what is its purpose? To inform and educate the voters or to help maintain a two party (actually 1 class – capitalist) dictatorship?

That's not very democratic to me.

Socialists demand: Open the debates!

On 38, you get in the debate.

It's that easy.