This week’s Democratic presidential debate featured eight candidates, of varying degrees of “competitiveness” (likelihood of getting the nomination). This upcoming week, the Republican hopefuls will face off with ten candidates sharing a stage, only some of whom have a legitimate shot at being the GOP nominee.
I’m wondering, should the parties, in conjunction with event organizers, limit participation in these events? If so, how?
There appear to be two main approaches to the question:
* The more, the merrier — Debates offer a level playing field, giving voters a unique opportunity to hear a variety of competing voices. To deny a candidate an opportunity to participate in such an event is inherently arbitrary and undemocratic. Sure, some candidates are obviously long shots, but a) their ideas deserve to be heard; and b) voters might like what they hear, propelling a dark horse into contention.
* Serious competitors only, please — Debates are a rare opportunity for voters to hear directly from the candidates, but more candidates means fewer questions and less information from the presidential hopefuls voters need to hear from most. Quixotic candidates aren’t going to win — they know it as well as everyone else — so their role in the debates is unnecessary and distracting. Limiting the events to credible competitors will make the debates more edifying and less farcical.
Of course, there are practical concerns to consider. How would certain candidates, including sitting and former members of Congress, be excluded? By whom? What would (should) the criteria be for participation? Poll standing? Fundraising?
Would more people watch a debate limited to the top contenders, or would fewer tune in because the more “colorful” candidates (cough, Gravel, cough) won’t be there? Was the GOP wrong to exclude Alan Keyes from some events in 2000?
Discuss.