Having sat through the phlegmatic presidential debates, I think it is now time to mourn the lack of additional voices. Regardless of Ross Perot’s realistic chances of being elected, he served a valuable role in the 1992 debates by forcing the two parties to confront and address issues they had too long neglected.
Isn’t it ironic that the individual parties often include as many as six and seven different candidates in their primary debates, but a “bipartisan” panel minimizes the inclusion of alternate candidates and ideas? As long as the “public” airwaves are used to broadcast the debates, why not allow the “public” to judge for itself the viability of alternative candidates and ideas?
Legislation should be passed to take this decision away from the self-interested parties and their well-heeled supporters. It should require no less than four or five candidates included in nationally televised debates. And to pay for it? Why not divert some of the millions of dollars the Democrats and Republicans allocate themselves to help mount their obsolete national conventions?
