If you want to be an informed voter, read this

I've written before about the farce of electoral debates where most of the candidates are excluded. During the 2004 campaign season, I decided to boycott the presidential debates because in excluding most of the presidential candidates, they were a wasted opportunity to fully inform the electorate. Worse yet, they insultingly claimed otherwise. I continue to refuse to watch any debate that excludes legitimate candidates.

I define a legitimate presidential candidate as one who's on the ballot in enough states whose combined electoral votes total at least 270. A legitimate candidate for any other office is one who is ballot certified and who has not withdrawn from the race. These both seem like reasonable definitions.

Some argue that debates with more than two candidates are unwieldy. This is nonsense. Canadian political debates regular include four or more party leaders. Even in this area, the local daily sponsored a debate last year that involved all five mayoral candidates (sadly, their actual reporting on the race wasn't anywhere near so inclusive). Multiparty debates can be done, if the will is there.

But sadly, the will isn't there. And the corporate media sponsors rarely have the backbone to stand up to the major party candidates and demand all-inclusive debates or none at all. The 'we make news, we just report it' media unilaterally decide who is a 'viable' candidate based on arbitrary factors like fund-raising figures.

For the media to ignore anyone who hasn't raised millions of dollars is arrogant. And it certainly flies in the face of the 'we don't make news, we just report it' pablum so regularly spewed.

Maybe it's self-interest. In deciding that fund-raising figures are relevant, maybe the big media conglomerates help ensure that those with money get more money... so they can give it to big media conglomerates for TV commercials and newspaper ads. 'Wall of separation' between editorial and commercial? You be the judge.

Several of these faux debates were held recently. The New York League of Women Voters decided to withdraw sponsorship for the faux debates for state attorney general and senate debates because legitimate candidates were excluded. They argued that such arbitrary and unfounded exclusion 'would violate the League's fundamental belief in the public's right to know.'

The non-partisan League's guidelines for who should be included in the debate are very straightforward.

The national League of Women Voters used to run the presidential debates. But the two major parties got upset when the League invited independent candidate John Anderson to its 1980 debate. So two major parties jointly formed a bipartisan (not to be confused non-partisan) Commission on Presidential Debates. Its co-chairmen: a former head of the Democratic National Committee and a former head of the Republican National Committee. Not surprisingly, only once has it included a candidate not from the Democratic or Republican parties... and that was under public pressure. (Not coindientally, it was the best series of debates they ever sponsored)

Since the corporate media can't be trusted to provide comprehensive electoral reporting (or debates), it's a good thing the League offers resources for voters who actually want to be well-informed.