Through participating in and supporting the development of gubernatorial debates that do not include all candidates who have achieved ballot status, The League of Women Voters has demonstrated an alliance to partisan politics—in stark contradiction to their stated purpose.  While their inclusive publications are sure to feature information about every candidate, big media events like statewide gubernatorial debates are a key component for promoting a more diverse democracy.  The League should object to the exclusive debates of which they are a part, or they should advocate for more inclusivity.

Here is the stated mission of the Cincinnati League:

The concept of “nonpartisan” is different from being “bipartisan”—and exclusive debates are bipartisan events.  Some may here be tempted to use flaming rhetoric, characterizing Pierce and Fitrakis as “unelectable fringe candidates”—but the facts remain that these candidates have achieved ballot status, and that success for any third party like Greens or Libertarians can come through a percentage of votes to get more party recognition in the future.  Winning office is not the only positive outcome for third-party candidates.  Such thinking takes a long-term view at democracy, not the narrow view that cannot look past the perceived emergency of the immediate.

More from the local League:

The League’s complicity in shutting out candidates from an important debate is an opposition of those excluded candidates.  It’s that simple.  The League is working against it’s stated philosophy through complicity.

If you agree, consider contacting The League, expressing your frustration at their participation in this unjust exclusionary practice.

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!

1. says:
   22 Sep 2006  at  08:16 am | #

   Third party candidates exist in the first place because the two major parties avoid many “major public policy issues.” Even if the candidates have virtually no chance in any given election, the voters still need to hear the issues raised by these candidates.  If the LWV won’t include the third party candidates in the debates, then they are not just restricting the debate to certain preferred candidates, but they are also restricting the debate to certain preferred issues.

2. says:
   22 Sep 2006  at  12:27 pm | #

   Good point, Mr. Patton.  Most LWV projects do serve to increase understanding of policy issues, and the debate guidelines are a small part of what they do.  However, it seems inconsistent for an organization that’s committed to diversity and considering multiple points of view to hold a position that leaves qualified candidates out of a major forum, even if that’s an unintended result and the guidelines can be applied selectively by local organizers.  I’ve heard that some past LWV debates have included all candidates who qualified for the ballot, but I don’t know what races they were for.  Apparently, for the upcoming debate here, either none of the organizers considered the fairness of the opinion-poll rule before I contacted them about it, or they elected to keep it anyway (for the requirements of the broadcast, the interests of the organizing groups, the wishes of Blackwell and Strickland, or a combination of factors - I don’t know, so I can’t say). 

   I think concerned LWV members should recommend that the state and/or local League review their debate guidelines as part of their 2007 program and affirm their commitment to diversity by adopting a position that opinion poll results should not be considered when deciding which candidates may participate in a debate.  In fact, any rules that may limit participation beyond the legal requirements to appear on the ballot should be applied only if the debate sponsors can demonstrate the need for them and if they don’t impede the free exchange of views.

   If any LWV members are reading and would like to work on this with me, please contact me (you can leave word with the editors).  Even if you don’t belong right now, you probably know some members whom you can tell about this issue.

3. says:
   23 Sep 2006  at  05:21 am | #

   The Cincinnati USA Debate Alliance is composed of the following organizations:

   Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber
   WCPO
   The Cincinnati Enquirer
   League of Women Voters
   National Underground Railroad Freedom Center
   University of Cincinnati
   CET
   Cincinnati Business Courier
   WVXU
   CityBeat
   The Cincinnati Herald
   Urban League of Greater Cincinnati
   NAACP
   Cincinnatus Association
   Society of Professional Journalists
   South Central Ohio Minority Business Council

4. says:
   23 Sep 2006  at  09:34 am | #

   Check these matters of not being included by becoming a League member.....even men are members. The local group has smaller groups that meet all over town, even an e-unit for those who are juggling time, business, family and civic endeavors.$50 is the yearly regular membership fee. These folks were the quiet and demonstrative activists before many of us hit this scene. The impact is that the group does more than just sponsor debates for the public, they gather information for working papers on many topics, making sure they are plugged into the decision making process at all government levels. 

   Names like Krekkler, Patton, Jeffre, The Dean and others that appear here would be nice additions to the collective fact finding and progressive nature of LWV. Part of a new generation.

   This case in Cincinnati looks to be a private cloistered gathering that may be more at the narrow gates of candidates and the sponsors than specifically the LWV. Would be nice to know what powers are given access in the studio, which is fairly small compared to venues like Museum Center, NURFC, Cintas and others.

5. League of Partisan Voters! says:
   23 Sep 2006  at  12:09 pm | #

   DomoniqueF, we shouldn’t have to join the League of Partisan Voters to have them refrain from interfering with a legitimate democratic election process. It’s bad enough the corporate media tries to do the same thing. They should continue to gather information and not be selective about what candidates the public gets to hear from. The candidates on the ballot are the candidates the people chose, it’s that simple.

   The League of Women Voters have become nothing but a bunch of whores for the Democrats and Republican parties. Their partisan and should have to become a Political Action Committee.

6. says:
   23 Sep 2006  at  12:19 pm | #

   OK, but at the same time it’s not a bad idea to join the League…

7. Nonpartisan says:
   23 Sep 2006  at  12:21 pm | #

   I wish Michael Earl Patton was running for County Commissioner so all of us who don’t think we need a new jail would have someone to vote for.

   The Dems and Republicans take things off of the table by agreeing on many major issues like the war, privatized health care, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, GATT, more jails, tougher penalties and more corporate welfare. They also collude to keep third parties off the ballot and out of the debates. They both represent the corporate agenda and protect a system that transfers pubic funds to private wealth.

   The Republicans won as a third party on a radical platform of abolishion of slavery. What if they were shut out by partisan groups?

8. LOPV says:
   23 Sep 2006  at  12:24 pm | #

   Dean, feel free to join them.

9. says:
   23 Sep 2006  at  07:46 pm | #

   LOPV, you did not offer up any demonstration on the 15 other sponsors of this televised event here. It’s easier to call out media as the debilitator than do some infiltrartive ground work for your own ideas. As a partisan in certain aspects, an inclusive activist in a wider realm, I see NO party, not even a third, offering a comprehensive plan for Americans, let alone Cincinnatians. The greater fear is in not proving ourselves on line and on paper, but to the people in the streets and at the polls.

   Fitrakis and Pierce got a sort of lemon sided, cutsey article in today’s Enquisitor http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060923/NEWS01/609230363
   which, on line, comes with two great photos. Make copies. Distribute them.

   Take a look at the Dean’s Blog Roll-a-coaster. Check the folks that ride those blogs as the owners. Pool the thought that this is NOT RIGHT among that cadre of intellectualized activists, then take the OTHER 15 you did not seek to skewer...except as overall media.....and ask them to, if THEY CANNOT HELP LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD ON LOCAL TV...to help fund or secure an alternative site for the other two candidates WITH room FOR THE PUBLIC TO GATHER.

   Is there another site on UC that’s available for the other two, the chickens, and the public to be privy to the alternative of the two main partisan camps? Will the Herald, CityBeat, Business Courier, WVXU provide some alternative help and step up to the plate along with The Society for Professional Journalists?  Or is the advertisement income from the two major jays in this birdwalk still shaky enough that their owners could be overlooked if they supplied the other part of the story in their pages?

   Think about this.......two venues....one not open to the public except the elitists and powerbrokers.......the other open to the public. Eleven days remaining.

   And by the way, LOPV, there are many partisans that pass out literature daily without being mindless wimps for the two major parties, but loyal to one or two candidates. Are you knocking on doors? Are you passing out the lit for either alternative party in neighborhoods? Ask one of those unpaid activists, no matter what their culture or ilk if you could walk and pass out lit with them. There are venues open.....make it a point to use your talents to ask to, or just participate. Your spheres of influence in this important matter far outweigh a wrong done by the LWV.

10. says:
    23 Sep 2006  at  09:07 pm | #

    Dominique, I think your assessment of the event as a “private cloistered gathering” and the reasons for that status are pretty much correct.  I heard that the initial plans for ticket distribution were for 2/3 of them to be available through the Blackwell and Strickland campaigns and 1/3 through the organizers (i.e. the Chamber of Commerce).  I wonder how easy it is to get a ticket through any of the other groups?  Some of the names on the list published today were new to me, like the Urban League, Cincinnatus, and the NAACP.  I wonder if they were added later or just not mentioned before.

    The LWV deserves criticism for appearing to condone the exclusion of third-party candidates, particularly because the alliance’s rules were derived from League guidelines, but doesn’t necessarily deserve condemnation.  This is a classic opportunity to apply some of the best advice I’ve ever heard: The question shouldn’t be “What are you going to do?” but “What are WE going to do?” In other words, criticism of an institution is more valid if you’re working within it to achieve the change you seek.  Surely you’ve come across similar situations before, LOPV....?  I don’t think that advice works in the case of a group like, um, the Democratic Party (because they’ve had plenty of chances to answer the question), but the LWV’s process and scale of operations make it much more receptive to legitimate proposals for reform.  I hope so, anyway.

11. Freedom Fighter says:
    24 Sep 2006  at  09:29 am | #

    Most minority parties are just riddled with flakes !

    Lyndon LaRouche(sp) one clear example.

    The remaining are just to “green” to have any experience or knowledge for effective debate !

    They are best left, at the coffee house, to scream at their own rallies, period !

    </b>

12. logic fighter says:
    24 Sep 2006  at  11:16 am | #

    Freedom Fighter, you aren’t fighting for freedom, just the status quo. The major parties are riddled with flakes like Kerry & Bush. Most Americans opposed the war, but not these extremists. Most Americans opposed the constitution shredding Patriot Act but not these idiots. 

    Bill Peirce is an economist with a PH.d.

    Bob Fitrakis is a political scientist, civil rights attorney, author and international election observer with a PH.d.

    They are both well qualified too debate and have been chosen by the people to represent our voices.

    Your name should be status quo hoe!

13. says:
    24 Sep 2006  at  02:31 pm | #

    Freedom Fighter, please refer to Michael Earl Patton’s first point on this thread about why we have third parties.  If the Democrats and Republicans did an effective job of representing the policy positions found in third parties’ platforms, we’d have nothing to cluck about.  They don’t, though, so here we are.  Your characterizations of third parties are common, but looking at them a different way might free your mind.  Riddled with flakes?  Well, it does take a certain combination of beliefs to break out of the pushme-pullyou D/R dynamic, but third parties also include a lot of creative, intelligent, concerned people who make the leap worthwhile. 

    Your statement that the non-flakes don’t have enough experience to debate effectively assumes a strong correlation that’s hard to prove.  Many great debaters have no political experience, and many seasoned politicians debate poorly.  Fitrakis and Peirce maintain that Strickland and Blackwell want to keep them out of the debates because F & P will make them look bad if they present their positions equally to the same audience.  If they’re wrong, wouldn’t allowing them to debate be the best way to show it?

14. Freedom Fighter says:
    24 Sep 2006  at  06:10 pm | #

    They are both well qualified too debate and have been chosen by the people to represent our voices.

    But, they have flakes following them.

    It is to freaky for the general public, period !

    I’m sorry I watched the video of the Clifton coffee house rally and it was freaky, sorry !

    Ralph Nader is a bright man and has done great work, but come on he is a flake !

    If he had not caused the demise of the Corvair, the Japs would not have taken over the car industry !

    Nader beat up on GM when GM knew there had to be a move to smaller cars and was ahead of the curve. Nader stood silent when the japs brought their death traps here, though.

    There just is no viability in third parties and never will be. Those bright people should work within the major parties for reform and inclusion.

    Else, they will always be those outsiders !

    That is just the facts !

15. Freedom Fries says:
    24 Sep 2006  at  10:36 pm | #

    Freedom Flake, you prove that the major parties have scary flakes following them. Why do you always write in bold letters and write the same things over and over?

    The Republican party was a third party that won on a radical agenda of abolition of slavery. FDR stole his new deal from the socialist party and saved the capitalist system by doing so. Ross Perot taught the American people about NAFTA and the massive job loss it would bring. He had a pretty good showing.

    The reason the corporate parties exclude third party candidates is because they know they could have a major upset like every time Jesse Ventura won.

    “Nader beat up on GM when GM knew there had to be a move to smaller cars and was ahead of the curve.”

    They still haven’t figured that one out and the Clinton/Gore administration gave the car companies a 8 year holiday from higher fuel efficiency standards.

    Ralph Nader is a hero. He took on GM because they were building cars they knew were death traps(like the corvair that was “Unsafe at any speed") and wouldn’t spend a small amount of money on saftey features like seat belts and collapsable steering wheels. He was also behind the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air and Clean Water Act.

    What Democrat or Republican has accomplished as much? And he’s just a citizen!

16. Republicrat says:
    24 Sep 2006  at  10:46 pm | #

    If the two parties are so viable, why are so many people not bothering to participate?

    It’s because most people think that both parties represent the same people and corporations that fund our corrupt campaign finance system.

    Had enough? Vote Independent 2006!