Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a problem: He argues that being excluded from the June 27 presidential debate between Biden and Donald Trump violates election rules and shows that those in power have already abandoned democratic principles.
But Mr. Kennedy’s case that the system is rigged against him faces significant obstacles — a tough argument for someone born into a wealthy and powerful family, whose membership in a widely respected group has given him far more name recognition than a candidate with the exact same resume, record and policies would enjoy.
To reinforce his victimization, the independent presidential candidate filed a complaint against CNN with the Federal Election Commission, claiming that the debates were unfair because they focused only on the front-runners. He argues that loyalty to democracy requires more interesting three-way debates. But such debates leave open the question of which candidate Kennedy would be more hurt by participating in them, and whether they would distract from the fundamental (if not ontological) differences between Biden and Trump on substantive policies, temperament, governing style, and acceptance of both the limitations and obligations of the Constitution.
Kennedy cites two criteria to support his argument. He’s right that a candidate’s voting range and position in the polls are important considerations in determining whether they’ll be included in the debates. CNN notes that to be eligible for a debate, a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes and appear on enough ballots to receive 15 percent support in four polls. But Kennedy is wrong to bring up these criteria to solidify debate participation.
Whether one applies the poll and ballot access tests strictly literally or more broadly and in context, Kennedy is eligible to debate — but it’s not the debate he wants. As for ballot placement, even assuming all of his petitions make it through vetting in states where that process hasn’t yet begun — Nevada’s petition has already been declared invalid because it doesn’t include a vice presidential candidate, and new signatures must be collected — he’s lagging behind both the Libertarian and Green Parties (37 and 22 states, respectively).
Kennedy supporters would be right to argue that CNN’s decision to apply these two standards literally and exclude Kennedy from the debate is an example of missing the forest for the trees, but they are once again making an argument against themselves: whether Biden or Trump wins the presidential election erases the importance of all other political issues we need to resolve.
But there is another question that can and should be debated in election forums: Would America’s interests, needs, and values ​​be better served in the future if we abandoned the tendency of the majority of Americans to support a two-party system (Republican or Democratic candidates) and broadened the range of parties from which voters could choose?
Four candidates are now in favor. A Biden-Trump debate and two sets of debates with Kennedy, Jill Stein or other Green Party candidates, Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver, and yet-to-be-decided partisan Cornel West are the best way to bring further clarity to two separate issues. First, what will be the impact of the election outcome? Second, should the outcome be so unimportant that voters stop making decisions and signal their commitment to a different system that offers a much wider range of options?
The two-part scenario gives Kennedy an opportunity to make the case for dismantling the two-party system he laments without shifting attention away from the most fateful electoral choice America has faced since 1860.
Barney Frank is a former U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts.
