All parties should be invited to debates

By: JIM TRAGESER - Staff Writer | Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:21 PM PST ∞

In this just-completed election cycle, we had the usual charges and complaints about which candidates were ducking debates.

For the most part, challengers wanted more debates, and the incumbents (or at least leading candidates) declined to debate the challengers -- or, at least, declined to debate as often as the challengers wanted.

But there's another group of candidates who want nothing more than a chance to participate in the debates, yet who all too often were shut out of the process.

These candidates represent the so-called "minor" parties. Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom, and more, these parties are regularly consigned to the sidelines by the media (that's me), by the Republican and Democratic parties, and by the various voter education and other civic groups that organize and host many of the debates.

If the rationale for an incumbent to refuse to debate their main opponent is not wanting them to appear equal in the eyes of voters, a similar rationale fuels the desire by the "major" party challengers to keep the "minor" party candidates off the dais: It might grant those candidates more legitimacy in the eyes of the voters.

Still, we in the media often drop the ball as well.

The irony is that while most newspapers (including, somewhat, this one) favor campaign finance reform as a method of "leveling the playing field" for third-party candidates, the media already have the power to give equal coverage to all candidates.

And yet, clearly we don't -- including the North County Times.

Heck, the Times itself co-sponsored a debate between 50th Congressional District candidates back in late May, ahead of the primary run-off to replace the disgraced Randall Cunningham. (I think the word "disgraced" ought to be officially appended to the man's name, by the way.) Our debate, and we invited only Brian Bilbray and Francine Busby.

Where were the other candidates?

And how many stories did we run in covering the 50th Congressional District election that mentioned only the Libertarian (Paul King) and Peace and Freedom (Miriam E. Clark) candidates in brief passing toward the end of the article? The explanation -- or excuse, depending on your point of view -- is that our readers are more interested in the Democrats and Republicans than in the third parties, all of which consistently draw low vote totals.

But how do our readers -- the voters, after all -- know if they are interested in the other parties if they don't ever get to read about them in any kind of depth?

Instead of treating elections like horse races or a baseball playoff, where only the top entrants merit coverage, how about treating them like the important civic process they are?

It seems to me that no newspaper should agree to participate in any election debate unless all candidates are invited to participate. And when half or more of those candidates whose names will appear on the ballot aren't invited to participate in debates, we ought to be asking those who organize them why.

And then we should tell you what that reason was.

-- Contact staff writer Jim Trageser at (760) 631-6628 or jtrageser@nctimes.com.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.