The Commission on Presidential Debates decided to exclude Reform Party candidate Ross Perot from this year's debates. The commission based its decision on Perot's low standing in public-opinion polls - critics charge that his standing indicates no victories for the Perot-Choate ticket in November.
If this is the only criterion, perhaps the committee should disinvite former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) as well.
While the commission's efforts to provide a debate for public viewing are appreciated, excluding Perot's ticket is partisan prejudice. The commission considered Perot's support before deciding whether to invite him to the debates; it planned to provide a forum "from which the American people will actually choose the next president." But the nonpartisan commission silenced Perot. To construct debates as a battle between two parties undercuts the commission's responsibility to sponsor genuine political discussion.
One of the benefits of including Perot in the debates would be the American public's opportunity to listen to a third candidate - one who is a refreshing change from the traditional politician. Some believe Perot's thirst for attention is a mockery of legitimate political debate. However, critics overlook the Reform Party's goals and its contribution to the political debate. For example, the Reform Party is calling for campaign finance reform, an issue that the other two parties have evaded.
The commission appears to be punishing the Reform Party for its decision to select Perot as its presidential candidate. Perot is more entertaining than President Clinton or Dole. Some ridicule Perot's use of charts and infomercials. Although comical, they helped to convince the American public of the national deficit's severity.
Moreover, Perot's exclusion undercuts the national commitment to democracy. Perot's name will likely appear on the ballot in all 50 states. His presence adds a new dynamic to Americans' voting practices. Furthermore, he is eligible for about $30 million in federal funds because of his strong showing in 1992. Unlike other political parties, the Reform Party's recent emergence proves it to be a viable political force - another reason to include it in the debate.
Most political observers give Perot little chance to win the presidential election. Even so, he is not a marginal candidate. Within the last four years, Perot has developed an independent electoral base - first with United We Stand and now with the Reform Party.
By inviting Perot to debate, the American public may have another alternative to "politics as usual." In 1992, Perot gained stature as a respectable leader - perhaps one worthy of the presidency. The candidates for other potential third parties have not crossed the threshold. Americans' desire for change and anger with the political process is widespread. Politics is volatile, and no one can predict how many voters will back Perot in November.
Restructuring the candidate selection process for debates would be fairly simple. The commission should not bar people from the debates whom they presume to have no chance of winning the election. Inviting Perot to the debate would have been healthy for democracy.