In announcing the debate format, the commission's press release said it would attempt to reach the "widest possible audience" by taking "full advantage of the Internet's potential for citizen engagement." But the commission's selection criteria will ensure that a significant portion of the audience won't hear views that might interest them.

Until the mid-1980s, presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a national civic group that had no partisan stake in the outcome of the debates or the elections. The league upset Democratic and Republican leaders by including independent John Anderson in the 1980 debates, and the commission was conceived as a replacement.

What exactly is the CPD? Despite its official-sounding name, it is a creature of the two major parties. It is a "nonpartisan" corporation set up by the Democratic and Republican national committees to implement debates "between their respective nominees." From its inception in 1987, its co-chairs have been former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national committees. The CPD finances the debates by raising money from corporate sponsors, many of whom are major contributors of soft money to the Republican and Democratic national committees. Tobacco and beer companies, including Philip Morris and Anheuser-Busch, have headed the list in the past two elections.

The CPD gained some notoriety — and a lot of criticism — when it excluded Ross Perot from the 1996 debates. Perot had won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992, was on the ballot in all the states and was the recipient of $30 million in public financing. Nevertheless, the CPD decided that Perot was not a "viable" candidate, based on vague criteria and interviews with pundits, pollsters and consultants.

The CPD's standard for the 2000 election isn't vague: Inclusion requires a 15 percent showing in the polls, as measured by the average of five private media polls (some of which may not list all the candidates). This percentage is large and arbitrary; it lacks any basis or support in law or policy. And it is triple the statutory minimum for federal matching funds, which is 5 percent.

Even the most significant third-party candidates have found a 15 percent standing in the polls nearly impossible to achieve without getting into debates. The most successful third-party candidacy in recent times was Jesse Ventura's 1998 victorious bid for Minnesota governor. If a 15 percent pre-debate cutoff had existed in that campaign, Ventura would have been excluded. His Democratic and Republican rivals undoubtedly wish he had been left out; many voters say it was his debate performance that convinced them to vote for him.

Like Ventura, the two best-known third-party candidates in the 2000 presidential campaign are unlikely to register poll numbers of 15 percent or more before the debates. United in their desire to be included in the debates, they come from different sides of the ideological spectrum.

Nader, who ran in 1996 but did not campaign much, is actively running this time as the Green Party candidate. The longtime consumer advocate — you can thank him for your car seat belts — opposes Democratic and Republican policies on world trade, health care, campaign financing, the death penalty, the military budget and the environment, and challenges the dominance of corporate interests in the economy, the electoral process and everyday life.

Buchanan is a well-known TV commentator and former adviser to President Reagan and other prominent Republicans who wants to be the Reform Party's nominee. He bolted from the Republican Party last year to advocate his very conservative brand of populism.

In several recent national polls, Nader's best showing was 7 percent and Buchanan's was 4 percent, together amounting to support from more than 10 million Americans. Majorities of those polled, however, favor including both in debates. This open-mindedness has been consistent for some time: The vast majority of Americans favors inclusion of a range of significant views and candidates in presidential debates, even if they plan to vote for a major-party nominee.

How can we accomplish that? Not by excluding Nader and Buchanan. There are several alternative proposals that would make sure that significant candidates are invited while avoiding overly encumbered debates. Recently, a sensible approach has been developed by a group known as the Appleseed Citizens' Task Force on Fair Debates under the direction of American University law professor Jamin Raskin. It recommends the inclusion of any candidate who is on enough state ballots to be capable of winning a majority in the Electoral College and who has at least 5 percent support in the polls — or a majority of those polled saying they favor his or her participation in the debates.

Exclusion of candidates such as Nader and Buchanan raises fundamental issues. The major parties have for many years opportunistically aimed their messages at the middle of the political spectrum, often alienating or boring many who wind up not voting. This state of affairs undermines American democracy. It will continue as long as the major parties successfully promote the notion that there are no viable alternative ideas or candidates, which is what they have done by excluding their opposition from the debates.

The nation's broadcast media have so far been accomplices in this charade.

CPD debates should at least be accurately labeled as Republican-Democratic campaign events, rather than as "presidential debates." The media also have considerable power to serve the public in this matter: If the major networks and cable outlets refuse to carry the CPD's exclusionary debates, it might lead to a change in the system. In any case, the rules of the debates should not be left to the major parties or their handpicked representatives, who have a history of excluding candidates and ideas the public wants — and deserves — to hear.

David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University, is the editor of the 1998 edition of "The Politics of Law" (Basic Books). He has given advice to the Ralph Nader campaign on the presidential debate issue.

Copyright 2000 The Daily Camera

###