"Media and Major Parties Conspire to Limit Debate"

Self-avowed "neutral" debate moderators and their media bosses should not allow a far-from-neutral 'Commission on Presidential Debates' to dictate the terms of the debate. If he goal of the media in a genuine democracy is to inform voters, shouldn't the media then provide as much information as possible? Shouldn't voters be encouraged--or at least allowed--to consider a number of competing  points-of-view?

The Public are being cheated if the media continue to knuckle under to the demands of a rump organization that represents only two political parties--two parties which have been reduced to competing for the title 'Lesser Evil' by  voters who have become increasingly cynical (and bored!) over the views represented in these bland "debates". The media have already confessed to 'dropping the ball' when this nation was being led into war on false pretenses. That admission is virtually meaningless if the media now include only two candidates in their faux debates.

The media giants cannot be taken seriously if they continue to kow-tow to a sham organization which seeks to limit debate....to the very same parties that led us into the multiple crises we now have to find some way out of.  We need a real debate, not a series of charades and partisan claims to being less corrupt or less incompetent or more patriotic.

Why not give the responsibility for open debates back to the 'League of Women Voters' or some other truly non-partisan organization? Why not step up to the plate and go to bat for the American People, instead of meekly going along with what amounts to a fixed game?

Ralph Nader deserves to be heard....Cynthia McKinney deserves to be heard....Bob Barr deserves to be heard...and surely the Public deserve to hear the varied perspectives and creative ideas of these VERY serious candidates.  The media should be able to come up with some kind of arrangement that would allow their participation....on the same stage as McCain and Obama...or in separate debates that would include at least 3 candidates. Why not sponsor MORE debates on a rotating basis, rather than meekly follow the dictates of  'Commission for Presidential Debates'?

------------------------------------------------------------

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of securing it, is but a prelude to a farce or tragedy, perhaps both."
-- James Madison

Self-avowed "neutral" debate moderators and their media bosses should not allow a far-from-neutral 'Commission on Presidential Debates' to dictate the terms of the debate. If he goal of the media in a genuine democracy is to inform voters, shouldn't the media then provide as much information as possible? Shouldn't voters be encouraged--or at least allowed--to consider a number of competing  points-of-view?

The Public are being cheated if the media continue to knuckle under to the demands of a rump organization that represents only two political parties--two parties which have been reduced to competing for the title 'Lesser Evil' by  voters who have become increasingly cynical (and bored!) over the views represented in these bland "debates". The media have already confessed to 'dropping the ball' when this nation was being led into war on false pretenses. That admission is virtually meaningless if the media now include only two candidates in their faux debates.

The media giants cannot be taken seriously if they continue to kow-tow to a sham organization which seeks to limit debate....to the very same parties that led us into the multiple crises we now have to find some way out of.  We need a real debate, not a series of charades and partisan claims to being less corrupt or less incompetent or more patriotic.

Why not give the responsibility for open debates back to the 'League of Women Voters' or some other truly non-partisan organization? Why not step up to the plate and go to bat for the American People, instead of meekly going along with what amounts to a fixed game?

Ralph Nader deserves to be heard....Cynthia McKinney deserves to be heard....Bob Barr deserves to be heard...and surely the Public deserve to hear the varied perspectives and creative ideas of these VERY serious candidates.  The media should be able to come up with some kind of arrangement that would allow their participation....on the same stage as McCain and Obama...or in separate debates that would include at least 3 candidates. Why not sponsor MORE debates on a rotating basis, rather than meekly follow the dictates of  'Commission for Presidential Debates'?

------------------------------------------------------------

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of securing it, is but a prelude to a farce or tragedy, perhaps both."
-- James Madison

We, the undersigned, demand more than two alternatives for consideration as Presidential contenders.  Limiting our choices and limiting the voices we can hear are decidedly anti-democratic conditions on which to base debates as serious as those we deserve to hear amid the morass of this nation's current problems.

We believe that the 'differences' between the two major party candidates are more a reflection of their repective temperaments and personalities than they are of fundamental disagreements over general goals and policies.

We, therefore, ask that the media, which are responsible for providing as much unbiased information as possible for our consideration as voters, take steps to include in future debates any candidate, who has his/her name on enough state ballots to contend (mathematically) for the Presidency.

We sincerely hope that you will give our request the attention it deserves.  Thank you for your consideration of this petition.