Delaware Debates

Statement

Think Political Debates Will Inform You on the Issues? Think Again.

Voting is a cherished privilege and a civic duty. You're a responsible citizen. You take your right and obligation to vote seriously. You try to stay informed on the candidates and the issues, but it isn't easy. There are so many candidates for the various offices, and the number of issues is overwhelming. This pundit says one thing, and that pundit says something different. And forget about the political ads. There's nothing to be found there but mudslinging. If half the stuff in those ads was true, those guys would all be in jail. So what do you do? Well if you're like a lot of Delawareans, you look forward to the candidates' debates where you'll get to see all the candidates facing one another in the same room. They'll all present their plans for governing and make their case why they should be your choice come election day. That's the beauty of debates, right. A smorgasbord of ideas. It's sort of one stop shopping. Every candidate, and all the best ideas on display for you to choose from, right? All the candidates, dukin' it out face to face with equal opportunity to present their ideas and may the best ideas win. Right? Right?

Well, actually, no. That's not quite right. The reality is, most debates are structured in such a way to consistently distort the choices with which you are presented. Most formal debate formats include a list of criteria that must be met for candidates to be included in the debate. The debate sponsors will tell you that they are improving the quality of the debate by limiting the line-up to "viable candidates". More cynical observers will tell you they are manipulating what information you are allowed to hear. The criteria for inclusion will often include a requirement that the candidate's party must have garnered a certain percentage of votes in the last election, or the party must have a minimum number of registered voters. The cynics have their own version of these inclusion criteria. "Only Republicans or Democrats need apply". The debate organizers will cite alternative inclusion criteria that they claim makes up for this inequity. Exceeding a certain threshold in a major recognized poll will get a candidate onto the debate stage. Those skeptical of that explanation counter with an insightful question. When was the last time a major recognized polling organization included questions or data about any candidates other than the Republican or the Democrat? It's kind of a Catch 22 situation. If you do well in a poll, you can debate. But you can't do well in a poll if you are refused the opportunity to get your message before the voters and debate on equal ground with the Republicans and the Democrats.

Well that's too bad, you say. But after all, isn't real politics really about Republicans and Democrats? Who else is there? Well, if you look at the official numbers of registered voters in Delaware, you might be surprised to see who else there is out there. Delaware has just under 293,000 registered Democrats, just under 183,000 registered Republicans, and just over 146,000 voters registered as other. So the reality is, about 24% of Delaware voters are not registered as either Republican or Democrat. Those cynics see that number and ask why do debate sponsors consistently limit participation to only Republicans and Democrats when there are often other ballot qualified candidates from alternative parties in the race, and the Delaware electorate is obviously more diverse than just two parties? The sponsors say it's just a numbers game, designed to limit the debate to "viable candidates", and the rules are fair. The disenfranchised candidates say the rules are anything but fair. They say the numbers are cooked to produce the desired outcome which is the protection of the monopoly held by the two major parties. And what does that phrase "viable candidate" even mean? Who gets to decide who is a viable candidate? Voting rights advocates say if you qualify to get on the ballot, a high bar to clear in and of itself, you should be considered a viable candidate. Debate sponsors apparently think they get to decide.

You might wonder if this state of affairs has any practical influence on the free and fair dissemination of political information in Delaware. Let me share an example with you. Brent Wangen is a Millsboro resident, a husband, and a father of two who works as a project manager for a computer outsourcing company here in Delaware. He is also the Libertarian Party candidate running for Delaware's lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. That's a tough race under the best of circumstances. It's tougher still for a local alternative party candidate with a full time day job, no party funding, and relatively unsophisticated party support infrastructure . But this is America. We are a society that values the free exchange of ideas, especially political ideas. Even a poorly funded candidate of a smaller alternative political party should stand a fighting chance in a free and open forum of ideas if his ideas have merit. Unless, of course, the forum of ideas has been hijacked by the majority parties to exclude any independent voices that would challenge their supremacy. You can't earn the public's trust and the public's vote if you are prevented from having your message heard by the people you seek to represent.

On October 6, 2010, the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication will hold a televised Candidate's Debate for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. Well, that's not entirely accurate. They will hold a Candidate's Debate for the Democratic and Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. Others need not apply. Brent Wangen knows this because he did apply back in July. He was told in a very polite letter that he would not be included. He was not a viable candidate. More recently, Mr. Wangen petitioned to be included in a debate to be held by the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Newark. They declined to include him. He was not considered a viable candidate. The New Castle County Chamber of Commerce is hosting a debate for House candidates next Tuesday, September 21. One Republican and one Democrat only. No more room at the inn. Most recently, in what may be the cruelest example yet of this bizarre love affair between Delaware debate sponsors and the major political parties, Brent was actually invited to participate in a Candidate's Forum held on the 16th of September by the Jewish Federation of Delaware. Brent promptly accepted the invitation. E-mails were exchanged to confirm his participation. Brent showed up on the evening of the Forum to an overflow crowd at the Jewish Community Center in Brandywine Hundred. When he presented himself to the event sponsors, he was informed that he would not be allowed to participate after all. It seems they did not consider him a viable candidate. By this time you may be seeing a pattern here. Mr. Wangen certainly sees it.

Through it all, Brent has managed to maintain a positive attitude. He characterizes himself as a happy warrior. While obviously resenting his shabby treatment at the hands of some of Delaware's more prestigious institutions, Brent points out that the real victims in this are the voters of Delaware. He feels they are being spoon-fed their candidates; that their choices are being limited by the very organizations they trust to provide them with information. As far as his message to voters, Brent says it's quite simple. He is a citizen politician, not a career politician, and his political platform is familiar to millions. It is the Constitution of the United States of America. His campaign motto is, "The Constitution is the Solution." And as to the major parties efforts to stifle debate, well Brent has an answer to that as well. Brent is a devoted admirer of George Washington. He quotes our first president's low opinion of political parties.

They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction.

Source