Photo Credit: Allison Saeng / Unsplash+

On September 10, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will participate in the second presidential debate of the 2024 cycle -- but it will be the first time they share the same stage.

The debate, hosted by ABC News, will take place at the National Constitutional Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It is scheduled for Tuesday, September 10, at 9 pm Eastern.

The rules will be identical to the June CNN debate, but that isn't the only thing they have in common. Like the CNN debate, the ABC debate won't be sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The CPD organized every general election presidential debate from 1988 to 2020, but it had drawn the ire of nonpartisan reformers and third parties for denying voters more than two candidates.

Polling over the last three presidential election cycles has consistently shown that voters want at least one additional candidate on the debate stage. However, the CPD's rules were designed to prevent this from happening.

The CPD was also criticized by the presumptive major party nominees in 2024 for not doing enough to cater to them and their demands. So, in May, Biden and Trump cut ties with the CPD.

READ MORE: Did the Major Party Campaigns Just End the Commission on Presidential Debates?

The major parties decided, instead, to negotiate directly with media outlets to organize and sponsor the debates. CNN was the first network to extend an invite, followed soon after by ABC News.

How quickly everything developed suggested that the campaigns had already been in communication with these media outlets ahead of the announcement that Biden and Trump would not participate in a CPD Debate.

It is unclear right now what this means for the future of the CPD, especially if Republican and Democratic campaigns decide to go directly to media outlets if and/or when they decide they want to debate.

Is This a Good Thing?

Independent Voter News has extensively covered the CPD since 2016, including lawsuits challenging its rules that favor and exclusively endorse the major party nominees, as well as objections to its bipartisan criteria. 

LEARN MORE: Everything You Need to Know About the Commission on Presidential Debates

The last time there was a candidate outside the Republican and Democratic Parties on the debate stage was Ross Perot in 1992. However, despite getting 19% of the vote, he wasn't invited back when he ran again in 1996.

Then, in 2000, the CPD established new rules for debate entry. The most notable of them was the "15% rule," which stated that a candidate had to poll at 15% or higher in 5 national polls handpicked by the commission.

The problem is third party and independent candidates often lack sufficient name ID and are denied coverage by national media outlets that might bolster their poll numbers to that level.

It's become a "chicken-and-egg" situation where the media says they don't cover candidates because their polling doesn't show viability, but these candidates need coverage in order to poll higher. 

As a result, it has become all but impossible for any candidate outside the Republican and Democratic nominees to get to 15% in national polling in time for the presidential debates.

What's more, the CPD has had third-party candidates escorted away or even arrested for being in the same vicinity as a presidential debate, even if they are just attending or protesting the event. 

The CPD has also failed to provide debates of notable substance. These events should be an opportunity for voters to hear candidates argue for and defend their policy positions.

Instead, presidential debates have become defined by awkward moments and "gotcha" one-liners as candidates are given a minute to respond to questions, a minute for rebuttal, and half a minute to respond to rebuttal.

It has turned debates more into media spectacles than a forum for nuanced policy discussions and voter education.

From this perspective, one might come to the conclusion that it is a good thing that the CPD is losing its control over general election presidential debates. The problem is nothing has changed in 2024.

The reason the Commission on Presidential Debates was established was to give the two major parties and their campaigns more say on debate format, questions, and rules.

The League of Women Voters, which organized televised debates until 1988, dropped its sponsorship because it warned that the CPD was perpetuating "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 honest answers to tough questions," said then-League President Nancy M. Neuman.

"The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

It's a prophecy that turned out to be correct -- but the issue the League had was that campaigns were no longer forced to argue for and defend their policy positions outside a controlled campaign environment.

This was made even worse in 2024.

The Biden and Trump campaigns were able to leverage the media's desperation for debates in their mutual decision to ditch the CPD. By negotiation directly with CNN and ABC News, they got more control over the debates. 

They made sure debates continued to be a two-person affair. They were able to get things like mic-muting and a prohibition on fact-checking or corrections from moderators.

The debates catered to the campaigns' demands as media outlets prioritized ratings over substance. So, while the CPD was not working for the American voter -- neither are corporate-controlled debates.

What's The Solution?

The one thing that can be said in favor of the CPD is that it guaranteed presidential debates for 9 consecutive election cycles -- even if these debates were devoid of substance or choice.

By moving away from an organization specifically created to organize and sponsor debates, the US faces a scenario in which presidential debates are no longer guaranteed in the future.

It's up to voters to decide whether or not this is a bad thing considering how little debates have done to sincerely educate voters on candidate positions or the issues that matter most to the public.

But ideally, this type of forum should exist. Most voters do not have the time to regularly keep up with the candidates running for president or the latest updates on any given issue.

From this perspective, having presidential debates that offer voters an opportunity to sit down and listen to the candidates discuss important issues and how they plan to address them should they get elected is essential.

But it must be done in a truly nonpartisan way. Candidates should be removed from the comfort of a controlled campaign environment. The rules and format should emphasize choice and substance. 

This can only be accomplished if the organization that organizes and sponsors the debates is truly nonpartisan -- both in foundation and structure. 

Is this possible? Likely not under the current system.

The CPD exists to strengthen a two-party system designed to put the interests of two private political corporations first while at the same time protecting them from competition.

Remove the CPD from the equation, and now debates exist to serve the interests of not only the political parties, but corporate media outlets that care more about shareholders than voters.

The only way to change this is to change the system to incentivize putting voters first -- something a growing number of Americans are attempting to do in states across the US.