This is all copied from the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984.[6]In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:[10] The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."[10] The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. Some have criticized the exclusion of third party and independent candidates as well as the parallel interview format as a minimum of getting 15 percent in opinion polls is required to be invited. In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission (CDC) was formed with the stated mission of returning control of the debates to an independent nonpartisan body rather than a bipartisan body. Nevertheless, the CPD retained control of the debates that year and in 2008.
I decided to look into the origins of these debates, after watching the circus tonight. What a marked contrast from the Lincoln-Douglas style debates. I know most of us are aware and admit there is corruption, not just in politics in general but the debates in particular, I just found this pretty illuminating.
Hey norse i was spoiled. I grew up reading with malice towards none and the way the authur described the debates lead Me to think that was the way debates were. So now Whenever I watch one on tv I am totally turned off. The canadaites get two mins to answer a question and the answer to the questions are mini statements. Sometimes another guy gets to make a comment in reply to what was said....but the moderator ALWAYS cuts them off....shielding the public from the canadiate. And controlling the canadaites image. I think the debates should be on cspan. Get rid of the ratings I like watching the debate to watch a person fold under presure. Seeing that live is kind of kool. But i dobt have cable so i havet seen any this season.
Ross Perot's impact in 92 changed the entire political structure of U.S. elections. The two-party system was like, fuck this.
They flat out refuse to even say the name of a third party candidate let alone give them a second of airtime.
Who do you want for your new master choice A or choice B? What's that? You don't want either of those choices? You must be some kind of America hating ass hole.! You just take your freedom for granted! People have died so that you can make this choice and you're just going to piss it away! Fuckin heathens!
ill probly vote Hillary. If everyone is insisting on world ruin, we might as well speed it up so we can hurry up and restart -Yuri
the thing that gets me about the debates is the "analysts" who talk for hours before and after the debates are either supporters of one of the candidates or worked for the candidates/past presidents all the commentary is just free PR
so true Lenny. I will get annoyed when I see that. Someone correct me if im wrong but My understanding is that the "media" "press" somewhat originated/evolved from political newsbills printed by an individual that wanted to get his view of things out there. So I can't really blame them
The media is just the fourth branch of the government. They are forced to get quotes from the establishment to write stories. So instead of being critical of the info they are given they are forced to spread the messages. It's very rare that an interviewer challenges a guest because if they do then the guest won't come back on their show. Therefore they are forced to bend over backwards because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. That's the only good thing about the Internet. It has allowed the rise of more independent and alternative journalism which is less beholden to ratings/corporate interests that can actually call bulls it when it's so obvious. The best interviewer on TV right now in my opinion is Jake Tapper. He'll definitely push back and call bullshit sometimes but even he is still beholden to ratings and must back off a lot of the time.