Debate commission can't change rules for third-party candidates

The Green Party wants to see its candidate, Ralph Nader '55, participate in the presidential debates, which the Commission on Presidential Debates will host this fall. The problem is that Nader hasn't yet garnered enough support in the polls to qualify for those debates. The Green Party solution? Attack the entire candidate qualification system as unfair to third-party candidates. Maybe the process is unfair. But is it evil?

In 1987, the non-partisan, nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates took it upon itself "to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners." During the last three election cycles, the CPD has worked toward that end by sponsoring, planning and organizing a series of fall debates between qualifying presidential candidates.

So who qualifies? Back in 1987, the CPD, advised by the Federal Election Commission, came up with three criteria for candidates wishing to participate in its debates. First, a candidate must meet all the constitutional requirements for election to the presidency — he or she must be American-born and older than 35. Second, a candidate's name must appear on the ballot in enough states to garner — in theory — a majority of the electoral votes. Third, a candidate must demonstrate nationwide electoral support by receiving at least 15 percent of the vote in a preselected series of five polls conducted by major media outlets such as NBC, CNN and The Washington Post.

The 15 percent hurdle is the criterion that bothers the Greens. It doesn't jibe with the five-percent figure the FEC uses to decide which parties will receive federal matching funds for their campaigns. It also seems arbitrary: Why 15 percent? Why not 10 or 20 or 3.14? Add to these complaints the fact that the CPD's managing board is composed entirely of Republicans and Democrats, and the Greens seem to have a good case. Maybe the CPD is willfully shutting out third-party candidates from the debates.

Therefore, the Green Party proposes lowering the polling hurdle to five percent. But it's hard to say why five would be any better than 15. The CPD is a nonprofit, nongovernmental corporation. It doesn't have to answer to the government or to the people of America — only to its contributors. There is no reason the CPD must toe the FEC five-percent line. Pretty much any number the CPD comes up with is going to be "arbitrary."

In fact, if the CPD were to cave in to Green Party demands and lower its electoral-support requirement to five percent, it would be far less than arbitrary. Why are the Greens so dead-set on the number five? Because it's the lowest round-number percentage that Nader could feasibly take in polls. (As of mid-September, Nader's support was at roughly four percent.) The Reform Party's Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, wouldn't profit from a five-percent rule. With his support hovering around two percent, it's unlikely that Buchanan would make the cut. As long as the CPD keeps its electoral-support criterion, some candidate always is going to be left out of the debates. The question is, which one?

When you're planning a major media event that will be viewed by perhaps 60 million people, there are three things to think about: logistics, logistics and logistics. It's unfortunate that the CPD handles the debates in such a way that third-party candidates are often excluded. Perhaps this is because it has a secret interest in the two-party system. On the other hand, perhaps it does this because it lacks the resources to host every Tom Wells, Dick Calderwood and Harry Browne who wants to debate. Either way, the CPD is entitled to its opinion. Next time the Green Party can round up a few million dollars, it will be too. Melissa Waage is a politics major from Johnson City, Tenn. She can be reached at mrwaage@princeton.edu.