Most school children learn about the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858...at least to a small degree. The debates were primarily concerning the Illinois state legislature, the speeches brought forth people from neighboring states. Lincoln even published the texts of all the debates later and used it as his launching pad for his Presidential run two years later.

Then there are the famous Kennedy-Nixon debates which were the first televised Presidential debates. It has often been said the radio listeners felt that Nixon won the debates while television viewers rated Kennedy the winner. Thus political parties soon learned the power of image.

Now flash forward to the last election cycle...and how boring and plainly useless the Obama-McCain debates were. There is a reason for that.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to protect the images of both Democratic and Republican candidates. The CPD was formed by both the the Democratic and Republican parties to protect the two party system.

At a news conference, Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic national chairman, and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the Republican national chairman, said they had the support of all the 1988 Presidential hopefuls for the new arrangement, which they said would ''institutionalize'' the debates and strengthen the role of the political parties in the electoral process...

...In response to questions, Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit group made up of representatives from each party, was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates. He said the issue was a matter for the commission to consider when it worked out the format, timing and other details of the debates with the candidates.

Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates. But he said he could not speak for the commission.

In 1992, voters no longer supported President George H. W. Bush. Clinton was the Democratic dark horse candidate but potential scandals began popping up out of the woodwork. The independent candidate, H. Ross Perot, began leading in the polls.

That summer, polls showed Ross Perot had a commanding lead with 39% of the vote. Unfortunately for his supporters, by July Perot dropped out of the race. Upon his exit, Clinton's number shot up. When Perot announced that he was reentering the race, Clinton clearly didn't want him involved. Bush did...with the assumption that Perot would pull votes from Clinton and not so much himself.

The CPD didn't want Perot involved because it feared his inclusion would set a precedent for future third party candidates.

"The commission was worried about the precedent of third-party candidates always being included," said Mickey Kantor, chairman of Clinton's campaign.

Bush pushed for Perot's inclusion in the debates and Clinton acquiesced lest he appear to be undemocratic. On election day, Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote.

By 1996, neither candidate wanted Perot in the debates.

Scott Reed, Dole's campaign manager, said, "We didn't want Perot in the debates. Nothing else really mattered. ... We made sure Perot wasn't going to be in the debates."

Dole was more concerned with Perot possibly sapping votes away from him and the Clinton camp knew this. They used the threat of having Perot in the debates to force their will on the format of the debates.

George Stephanopolous, senior advisor to President Clinton, explained, "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."

A settlement was reached. Perot was out and President Clinton got to dictate the format of the debates. Months later, Dole lost the election. Perot garnered a mere 8% of the popular vote.

In 2000, the CPD created a stipulation which required potential candidates to have at least a 15% support level across five national polls in order to participate in Presidential debates. Consequently, Ralph Nader was not invited.

One might ask how a person is supposed to attain 15% support when that person is locked out of debates. The answer? The two major parties know that it is virtually impossible for a third party candidate to achieve this...hence the rule.

I have already written an article entitled In Defense of Third Party Voting which outlined many third party elections through history and why I disagree with the two party system. A blog on The Modern Left's blogroll, Poli-Tea Party, deals primarily with the stupidity of the two party system.

An organization called Open Debates would like to help change this problem.

Open Debates is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to reforming the presidential debate process. Currently, the presidential debates are controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties, through the private bipartisan corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. As a result, challenging formats and popular third party candidates are often excluded from the debates.

Open Debates has launched simultaneous campaigns to inform the public, the news media and policy makers about the antidemocratic conduct of the Commission on Presidential Debates. It is also promoting an alternative presidential debate sponsor - the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission - comprised of national civic leaders committed to maximizing voter education.

Even if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Republican or Democrat, I think we can all agree that allowing more openness in the debates and more people with differing philosophies will help the American people choose the person who best exemplifies the character they would want in a leader. Allowing third party candidates will force even the two major parties to field the absolute best candidate they have to offer...and not so much just a past President's son.

If you believe that the American people deserve better than simply allowing the two parties to dictate to us who we will vote for and how we will perceive them, why not pop over to Open Debates and give them your support?

As Former President George H. W. Bush himself has said:

"I'm trying to forget the whole damn experience of those debates. 'Cause I think it's too much show business and too much prompting, too much artificiality, and not really debates. They're rehearsed appearances."

Granted, he attempted to use the CPD to his advantage...but even he realized that this format destroys what the Presidential debates are supposed to be.