[sad to say, this is strictly a work of fiction]

WASHINGTON, DC - The League of Women Voters made a dramatic announcement today that it is resuming sponsorship of presidential debates after a twenty-eight year hiatus. The League announced that, in cooperation with Public Citizen and several other public interest organizations, it is forming the Independent Commission on Presidential Debates for the purpose of offering an alternative debate structure whose rules, format and eligibility requirements are not in any way dictated or determined by any of the participants.

League President Chris Carson did not mince words: "The objections we had that caused us to withdraw our sponsorship in 1988 unfortunately are still equally relevant today. The current debate commission, which was and is a joint venture of the Republican and Democratic parties, is still perpetuating a fraud against the American people. I stand by what my predecessor Nancy Neuman said back then:

'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 honest answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.'"

The full text of the League's press release detailing its reasons for withdrawing sponsorship can be viewed at the following link:

http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud

Carson went on to say that as things stood then, the League had no other options but to either go along with the demands of the Bush and Dukakis campaigns, or else withdraw sponsorship. "At that time, in the minds of nearly everyone, the Republican and Democratic parties represented the entire universe of presidential options. So they were able to present their demands as a 'done deal' and make it stick. But fortunately the situation has changed in 2016. Other significant candidates have been added to the mix. We can still have meaningful debates without having to kow-tow to the demands of the most powerful players."

Under the proposed rules set forward in the press release, the only requirement for eligibility is that a candidate must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to make it statistically possible for him or her to obtain an electoral vote majority. Currently that would include Republican Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Gary Johnson, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

The proposed rules further state that the ICPD will have sole control over such matters as the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access to the press, and various other issues that became points of contention between the League and the two major parties in 1988. According to Carson, "The most important rule is that the new commission has sole responsibility for making and enforcing rules. The candidates and their campaigns don't get to dictate anything."

Ms. Carson made it clear that the debates will go forward as long as there are at least two viable candidates willing to participate. For a candidate who chooses to boycott the events, television footage from earlier debates, interviews, speeches or other appearances will be used so that audiences will still be able to contrast that candidate's position on vital issues to those of the candidates who do appear.

"We said in 1988 that the Republican and Democratic parties were perpetrating a fraud against the American people," Carson said. "Well guess what - twenty-eight years later they're still doing it. These sterile, choreographed events staged by a 'non-partisan' commission, that is in actuality a creation of the two major parties, ill serve the public, and make a mockery of the democratic process. They are no more than glorified commercials designed to exclude other players and shield their candidates from the kind of rigorous scrutiny that the public expects and deserves."

"We're not naive," stated Ms. Carson. "We know there's very little chance that the Clinton or Trump campaigns will agree to participate in our debates this year. The Republican and Democratic parties have had things all their own way for so long that they've become incredibly arrogant. They project a sense that, collectively, they own the people's votes, no matter how little they do to actually earn them. Our hope is that when voters contrast our genuine, informative and honest debates with the fakery and fraud perpetrated by the Democratic and Republican parties, there will be a price those candidates pay at the ballot box for their arrogance and intransigence. And in succeeding years, we believe that price will get progressively higher, until eventually at least one of them will no longer be willing to pay it."

The time, locale, and other information concerning the first ICPD debate will be released later this week.

---------

Well, it's a nice fantasy, even though all of us recognize there is virtually no likelihood of anything like this coming to pass, at least not in this election cycle. But we also know that it damn well should come to pass, because the "debates" as presently constituted are a sick joke, intended only to subvert and degrade the democratic process, and guarantee the perpetuation of the status quo.

And there's a larger point as well, namely that high profile players in academia and in the public interest arena, like the League of Women Voters, can no longer afford the luxury of maintaining their carefully cultivated posture of objective bystanders, neutral and above the fray. If there is to be the slightest hope of transitioning from an oligarchy that lavishly rewards the powerful few while punishing and exploiting the many, to a small 'd' democracy that fairly represents and protects the interests of all, those who now inhabit some lofty neutral and non-partisan perch have to be willing to step up their game, to abandon the pretense of strict neutrality and start getting down and dirty. If they don't, they can be certain the lions will eventually climb up into the stands and gobble them up anyway.