Contemplating the Presidential Election 
~ by JamesBanzer

   The American electorate paid closer attention to the 2004 presidential election than any other in recent memory. September 11 energized.

   Almost 120 million voters turned out in the election that propels President George W. Bush back into the White House, and insured that John Kerry remains a senator. That's roughly 60 percent of the eligible voters. Hopefully, it signals the beginning of an end of apathetic attitudes that have become the norm on election days.

   Voters should pat themselves on the back for doing their civic duty. In far too many previous elections, people stayed away from the polls in droves.

   Now it's time to start looking at how the election process can be made even better. For starters, just knowing the mannerisms of the candidates, and their
catch phrases and talking-points, is not enough. Too often, that's all we get.

   The problem is partly the voters' fault. Many voters fail to attempt a complete investigation of the candidates and issues. They seem content to let those
tip-of-the iceberg slogans and catch-words sway their decisions.

   It's partly the politicians' fault. The name of the game in 2004 again was to create little more than sound bites that will be remembered and repeated ad
infinitum. Most often, those bites said little about how the candidate would lead. Politicians use the system, so you can't lay all the blame at their feet.

   The fault is partly that of the media. Broadcasters and the press are lazy. If they wanted to do it, they could bring about a major change in the way candidates
are presented to the public.

   The most substantive part of the election process, after candidates are whittled down to the big two, is what we dub the debates. They are not debates in the
true sense though. The candidates know what kinds of questions are going to be asked before they take to the stage. The time allotted for answers is limited.
They have a pass from going into much detail.

   Seldom is an unexpected question asked in these joint television appearances. A rare exception happened in a 1988 debate between Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush. Moderator Bernard Shaw fired off the bombshell question.

   "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis gave his honest, but devastating
reply. "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life." Shaw could have said right then that the debate was over.
 
   Those kinds of surprises are extremely rare. The two major political parties control the debates, and that's why they are not real debates. The parties would prefer to stick to talking points, and they prefer limitations on the number of moderators.

   The media shyly goes along. Suppose that media organizations were to propose something new for the 2008 debate. With the clout of print and broadcast journalism combined, a real debate format could be molded and presented to the political parties. With the accompanying publicity, rejection of a well formulated debate plan would be almost out of the question.

   A possible scenario would be three presidential debates involving candidates of the two major parties, and one involving vice-presidential candidates of the
those parties. Then, why not have a fourth debate involving presidential candidates of the so-called third parties?

   Criteria for the latter could be that if the candidate had enough potential electoral votes to win the election, an invitation would be extended to be in the
debate.

   Third party candidates are often treated as those with the fringe ideas, but they frequently have thoughts which deserve to be aired. The major parties should
not continue being given exclusivity in the debate arena.

   In the most recent election, Ralph Nader was the only third party candidate who got any appreciable degree of attention. He got a reasonable amount of press, but three other more viable candidates got virtually none.

   The Libertarian Party, represented by Michael J. Badnarik, had a potential of 527 electoral votes. Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party, was on the
ballot in enough states that he could have accumulated 353 electoral votes. The Green Party candidate, David Lee Cobb, qualified for a potential 286 electoral
votes. Nader's potential was only 278 electoral votes, but he got the media attention.

   There are other things besides debate reform that could be done to improve the presidential election process, but that's a good place to start. It seems
pathetic that there are just two job interviewees for the presidency, and that they are given a virtual pass.

110904

   After a long career in broadcast news, James Banzer is now writing on his observations about the world around us. He currently resides in Louisville, Kentucky. You may send him e-mail at jamesbanzer@yahoo.com.

Archives