Remember when the League Of Women Voters Moderated Debates?

[Ferd Berfel]

The Debates were better.

Isn't it TIME for the LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS to moderate at least SOME of the debates of BOTH Parties Again?!

http://lwv.org/

The League of Women Voters was founded by Carrie Chapman Catt in 1920 during the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. The convention was held just six months before the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote after a 72-year struggle.

The League began as a "mighty political experiment" designed to help 20 million women carry out their new responsibilities as voters. It encouraged them to use their new power to participate in shaping public policy. From the beginning, the League has been an activist, grassroots organization whose leaders believed that citizens should play a critical role in advocacy. It was then, and is now, a nonpartisan organization. League founders believed that maintaining a nonpartisan stance would protect the fledgling organization from becoming mired in the party politics of the day. However, League members were encouraged to be political themselves, by educating citizens about, and lobbying for, government and social reform legislation.

This holds true today. The League is proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public. The League has a long, rich history,that continues with each passing year.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I believe they stopped moderating the debates because of the excessive demands by the candidates.

I sure wish they would moderate them, though.

Tough, honest questions would really help us.

[Ferd Berfel]

4. Tough Honest and NON_Partisan

[NCTraveler]

2. I have said this so many times here.

The debates were better and they should be given full control. It was also included in my letter to the DNC. Not that anyone read it.

Thanks for the op.

[MineralMan]

3. I always enjoyed the debates they moderated.

I think the media pushed them out so they could make hay by pushing the extremes and encouraging conflict in the debates, rather than simply discussing important issues.

For example, last night's Republican debate included a question about fantasy football gambling. As much as I dislike Christie, he was right to challenge that question on the grounds of relevance.

[mcar]

5. They were so much better

[onenote]

6. Not going to happen. Which is probably a good thing.

First, both parties want to control the debates. This is what the League said when, after sponsoring debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984 (that's right, there have been more than twice as many election years where the League didn't sponsor debates as years when they did), they threw in the towel: http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud

Second, the league may be non-partisan in that it doesn't endorse parties or candidates, it does take positions on issues and those positions (pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc) generally line up with our point of view. To the extent that they might have to push away from being an advocate on those issues in order to sponsor the debates (and there is no way the repubs are going to agree to a debate sponsored by a pro-choice, pro gun control organization), I'd rather that they not sponsor the debates and continue to make their voices heard.

[Ferd Berfel]

7. No it's probably not going to happen - but needs to...

the LWV is closer to representing the average American's views (Dem, Rep, Ind) than any MSM opeartion


POLL OF LIKELY 2016 VOTERS

Likely 2016 voters were asked to say if they support or oppose proposals submitted to the Big Ideas Project at ThinkBig.US. Click here to see the results.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprogressives.org/images/Big_Ideas-Polling_PDF-1.pdf

[onenote]

8. It's also not as if there weren't issues with the old formats

First, its a bit like comparing apples to oranges to compare a presidential debate with two or three candidates to a primary debate with between 5 and 10 candidates. I don't think the LWV ever dealt with the latter situation.

Second, the LWV debates weren't without their issues (remember the 30 minute technical glitch in 1976 that left the candidates standing around on tv with no sound looking like department store mannequins?)

I think the problem has less to do with who is sponsoring the debates than with the format of the debates. The LWV debates featured a moderator and several panelists, all from different news organizations. Even after the LWV bowed out, that format continued to be used until 1996, when the debate protocol shifted to one in which there was a moderator and a panel to one in which there was only a single moderator. That is the format that has been used since 1996 for the presidential debates and I think its a step backwards from the format used from 1976 to 1996 (which includes both LWV sponsored debates and Commission on Presidential Debates sponsored debates).

Now, in the primary debates this year, we're back to a panel of questioners. But instead of a panel made up of representatives of different news organizations, they all come from the same news organization. There is the FOX debate, the CNN debate, the CNBC debate etc. That, together with the sheer number of participants in a primary debates, tends to lower the quality of these debates.

[brooklynite]

9. LWV never moderated debates...

...they sponsored them.

And they never sponsored Primary debates.

[bvar22]

13. ...but the LWV did pick the moderator(s).

They were very careful to be non-partisan,
and those they did pick were, educated and informed about the main issues affecting our country....NOT TV Celebrities.

The LWV did not ever ask any "Flying Saucer" questions.

[Skidmore]

10. They hosted some great debates. nt

[bvar22]

11. The LoWV refused to have ANYTHING to do with the Prsidential Debates in the 80s.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:[9]

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

Worth Repeating:
It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

[longship]

12. Moarrrr debates!!!!!!!

BRAINS!!!!!

(Channeling a debate zombie.)