Introduction
At the presidential debates in Atlanta this week, Biden and Trump will duel for the position of the “best of the worst” of the major candidates that are running for president. CNN aims to improve efficiency with muted mics and an empty audience, but it’s difficult to see how a debate between a dementia patient and an egotistical liar isn’t doomed to be, at best, a lukewarm exchange of prepared talking points and, at worst, a “hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck.” At this point, only one person can salvage the debates and restore them to the pedestal of national discourse that they once were: Independent presidential candidate RFK Jr.
Background
Historically, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) organizes match ups every four years. This year, however, Trump and Biden have both ditched the CPD in favor of CNN, who will host this week’s debates.
CNN has upheld the CPD’s rules to participate in the debates, which are that a candidate must have enough ballot access across states to be able to win the Electoral College and that they must be polling above 15% in 4 or more national polls. Under these requirements, RFK Jr. comes closer than any other non-major hopeful but doesn’t quite qualify. Currently, he is polling above 15% in only three polls and has the ability to capture only 89 out of the 270 generally necessary electoral votes to win (though there were times when candidates have won with less).
With the unique debate format this year, there’s no good reason to continue these threshold requirements. Unlike the CPD, CNN is free to change its own rules, and should capitalize on this opportunity to create a more welcoming, informative, and respectful debate environment by inviting Kennedy to join.
This is a crucial year: RFK Jr. is the most popular third-party candidate since Ross Perot. Additionally, political debate has become more disrespectful and toxic. In the future, an additional debater on stage could act as an accountability check, more accurately represent Americans’ political views, and level the playing field for minor-party candidates. Right now, RFK Jr., who admittedly is nowhere near perfect, could still contribute to debate quality by grounding the audience in authenticity.
Americans are experiencing disintegrating national identity and a fracturing political culture. As a relatively unknown, passionate third-party candidate, RFK Jr. could symbolize direct opposition to the posturing politicians who will grace the stage on Thursday. Whether that happens is up to us.
Two Heads Are Better Than One, and Three is Best
One way Kennedy could improve the debates is by checking mainstream candidates. Although Biden and Trump have incentives to call out each other’s lies, there are times when both candidates benefit from hiding the truth or when they simply miss false information.
If debaters were perfect filters for their opponent’s falsehoods, then both Obama and Romney wouldn’t have succeeded at stretching the facts in their 2008 debate. Having another debater to further filter misinformation could increase the overall truthfulness of an event that needs to be accurate before it can be informative. As the saying goes, two heads are better than one. In this case, three might be better than two.
This scenario played out in the Arizona 2022 senate debate when mediators asked candidates about inflation and federal spending. Libertarian candidate Marc Victor called out his mainstream opponent’s lies: “Both the Republicans and the Democrats… have been recklessly printing money…It’s Bush, its Obama, its Trump, its Biden.”
Indeed, presidents on both sides of the aisle have spent rampantly in recent years. Victor’s low stakes in the game allowed him to pull the curtain back on his opponents’ lies and reveal what was really going on behind the scenes.
While this is just one example, the principle remains: RFK Jr. isn’t going to win, which means he has nothing to lose by telling the truth.
Ideological Representation
By barring Kennedy from the debate stage, CNN also misses out on an opportunity to more accurately represent the ideology of the American public. In nine states on the west coast, east coast, and in the middle of America, independents are the majority of registered voters.
In 2020, 31.8% of all registered voters were either independent or members of a minor party. If approximately one in three Americans don’t identify with Democrat and Republican ideals, why are they the only two parties given the floor at debates?
Level Playing Field
The CPD’s 15% polling requirement is just one symptom of a long history of exclusion and repression of third parties, a tradition CNN has decided to uphold.
The group Level the Playing Field found that it is “virtually impossible for an independent candidate other than a self-funded billionaire” to satisfy the 15% polling requirement because of the cost of name recognition. While there is logic behind the electoral college requirement, the polling threshold is at best arbitrary and at worst a ploy to exclude competition.
This unfair playing field has big picture consequences. In 1992, Texan billionaire Ross Perot, the first non-major candidate to participate in the debates in modern history, garnered an unprecedented 18.7% of the national vote. It cannot be a coincidence that the only third-party candidate to participate in the debates since CPD’s inception was also the most successful.
Media coverage is an important indicator of a candidate’s future vote share. However, for candidates like Kennedy, low polls cause low media coverage, and low media coverage causes even lower polls. This sequence results in an electorate that is largely uneducated about the stances of these invisible candidates, no matter how beneficial they might be.
The phenomenon of Perot’s performance begs the question: Are third-party candidates excluded from the debates because they are irrelevant or are they irrelevant because they are excluded? Inviting RFK Jr. onto the stage would provide much needed insight on third parties’ legitimacy, set up a more inclusive future national discourse, and break third parties out of their low media coverage cycle.
Increased Competition
Unfortunately, this isn’t likely to happen. Biden and Trump are comfortable with a system that excludes competition. In past years, that system looked like top Republican and Democrat officials, aids, donors, party chairs, and lobbyists were running the CPD. This year, CNN has little incentive to deviate from this tradition of exclusion.
In fact, Kennedy recently complained to the FEC about what he calls discrimination and collusion. He points out that, technically, Biden and Trump also don’t meet the electoral college requirement. Since their national committees haven’t nominated them yet, they do not have the ballot access required to win. In spite of this double standard, CNN has stood by their decision to keep Kennedy out.
More Informative
Increasing RFK’s visibility in the debates would not only benefit third-party candidates, but it would foster an educational environment for the audience. About 70% of Americans want RFK Jr. in the debates, even though his polls lag behind at around 15%. Although the debate audience doesn’t support Kennedy politically, they are curious about what he has to say.
With the major parties tightly monitoring entry into the national discourse, lack of innovation puts political thought at risk of stagnation. Biden and Trump will likely offer traditional strategies in order to appeal to center voters.
What the poll responders recognize is that RFK Jr., and third-party candidates in general, could alleviate this problem by “breaking the ice” on a stagnant debate stage and proposing new ideas. Even though they likely won’t win, exposure to their ideas is crucial to moving the nation forward.
This effect played out in the Perot, Clinton, and Bush debates of 1992. After both the first and third debates, the percentage of the audience that thought Perot had won was significantly higher than for Bush and Clinton.
In this instance, Perot proved to the nation that audiences were receptive to new ideas. If the CPD allowed RFK Jr. on stage, this 1992 narrative could replay in 2024, stimulating static policy discussions and fostering more productive discourse.
Three’s a crowd?
It’s a fair argument that adding Kennedy to the debate stage could result in a more chaotic viewing experience. In reality, the debate would be a majority of the audience’s first interaction with Kennedy’s ideology, motivating him to make an extra good impression and optimize this one chance for him to untangle any ignorance surrounding his platform.
This monumental mission leaves little time for personal assaults or disorder. With two passionate opponents, he could act as a lightning rod, diffusing charged ad-hominem attacks by remaining focused on the issues.
The Spoiler Effect
In spite of his potential to improve debates, Kennedy could exacerbate vote siphoning and change the election outcome. Although complex, the importance of this issue warrants some comment.
The spoiler effect is a valid concern if you assume the two major parties should be sheltered from competition, but it ignores the fact that third party candidates represent a legitimate option for voters who are disaffected with the system. It’s not stealing if it’s not illegal. While it is frustrating to lose because of a minor party candidate, that doesn’t mean mainstream ideologies deserve a monopoly on American minds.
Regarding voting outcomes, there could also be a surprise benefit to debate inclusion. In France, the addition of a third-party option on ballots increased voter turnout by 3.5%. With an abysmal U.S. voter turnout rate of 62.8%, piquing political interest would be a beneficial and timely side effect.
In summary, voting third-party is a legitimate way to voice discontent, and with Trump and Biden being the most disliked duo since 1980, staunch Republicans and Democrats should worry more about the caliber of their own candidates than RFK Jr.
Conclusion
It is true that political rhetoric is becoming more toxic, but muted mics and empty audiences are not the solution. In this critical time, we need more discussion, not less. Rather than sweeping his ideas under the rug, CNN should recognize RFK Jr.’s potential to introduce new ideas, represent the politically homeless of America, diffuse heated arguments, and provide an accountability check on mainstream candidates.
In conclusion, including RFK Jr. in the debates will not solve all that is wrong with political discussion today, but his participation would be the first step towards not only a more inclusive future for underrepresented candidates, but to a re-emphasis of the principle that makes the debates significant in the first place: The importance of civil discourse.
