Wisconsin Greens and Libertarians call upon We the People to include all candidates in forums and debatesWisconsin Green Party July 17th, 2007 Contacts: Wisconsin Greens and Libertarians call upon We the People to include all candidates in forums and debates WISCONSIN -- The Wisconsin Green Party and the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin today jointly called on the media consortium We the People to abandon the criteria it uses to decide which candidates will be included in its debates. The parties declared that the use of such criteria is counter to the public's interest in a democratic electoral system, and have sent a letter to We the People stating "No criterion could justify excluding any candidate on the ballot," said Ron Hardy, Co-chair of the Wisconsin Green Party, "so it's pointless to have criteria for inclusion." The two parties agreed that We the People has applied the current criteria unevenly. For example, in 2002, it included both the Libertarian and Green candidates in the gubernatorial debates, but refused to do so in 2006. When the Green Party informed We the People that its candidate was at least as qualified to participate in 2006 as in 2002, the consortium responded it had made its decision months earlier -- well before the Green Party's nominating convention. Greens and Libertarians call on We the People to simplify their criteria to a single test: if a candidate is on the ballot, they will be invited to the debates. The criteria as they stand are not serving their purpose, because candidates that fulfill them are still excluded from the debates. "Our analysis is that the criteria only serve a cosmetic purpose, and are not really part of the decision-making process," said Ruth Weill, Co-chair of the Wisconsin Green Party. Weill continued, "Only one policy will serve the interests of the voters of Wisconsin, and that's equal treatment of all candidates on the ballot. If you can walk into a ballot booth and vote for a candidate, you need to understand the pros and cons of doing so. If you haven't heard from every candidate, you are not casting an informed vote." Linda Sturtzen, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin, called on voters of all parties to support this demand by contacting We the People and adding their voices to the call. "Over the years, our two parties have talked with thousands of voters, and found that people of all opinions want to hear from candidates of all opinions. Support for full inclusion is all but universal across the political spectrum. In fact, it's not uncommon for people who have no intention of voting for us to become visibly angry when they hear how we are excluded. We encourage those voters and all voters to write Thomas Bier, President of We the People, at tbier @ wisctv.com, or call him at (608) 271-5171, and let him know that a debate isn't a debate until all the participants are present." Text of letter: It is our considered opinion that you have applied these criteria arbitrarily in past elections. However, our issue is not with the application of the criteria. That would mask the larger issue. The larger topic is the existence of the criteria in the first place. The idea that a functioning democracy requires an informed electorate is beyond question. In practice, however, We the People makes little effort to ensure that the electorate is fully informed when it takes part in the most elemental act of democracy, casting votes. On the contrary, the use of a list of criteria to participate in debates presupposes that not all candidates should necessarily be heard from, and that it is the proper role of the media to decide which ones the public will learn about. Quite apart from what the criteria are or how consistently they are held to, their reason for being is to decide the extent to which you will inform the electorate. In other words, there is a built-in assumption that you will not necessarily inform the electorate to the best of your ability. If having three or four candidates on stage was an onerous task, there might be some reason for limits, but you yourselves managed it in 2002. Media outlets around the world manage it year in and year out, many of whose sponsors are less generous than yours. If there was opposition to multipartisan debates among the public, we might hesitate to bring this up with you, but years of face-to-face talks with people of every description confirm that, almost without exception, voters of all opinions want to hear candidates of all opinions. If there were any real reason that the voting public should be able to vote for a given candidate but should not be able to hear that candidate speak on equal terms with the other candidates in the race, we would have heard it by now. We have not, because no such reason exists. >From your web page entitled "Who We Are" comes this paragraph: "Many citizens feel issues they care about and questions they need answered are not addressed by politicians. Many of those same citizens also feel the media does not cover these issues or questions - and even enables politicians to avoid them. We the People's goal is to ensure citizens' concerns are discussed fully and their questions answered, by devising forums in which these concerns are addressed by both politicians and the media." Our two parties fully agree with the paragraph above. By narrowing the number of candidates, We the People has limited discussion so as to exclude mention of all but a narrow band of views about health care (single-payer universal health care was not an issue), campaign finance reform (fair public funding of candidates was excluded), the Iraq War and its effect on Wisconsin (the misuse of Wisconsin's National Guard in Iraq and a call for its withdrawal were conspicuously absent), and many more. The same web page also contains this paragraph: "We the People/Wisconsin produces timely forums so that citizens can question political candidates, public officials - and themselves. It does not advocate for any candidate, political party or movement." And yet, when We the People fails to include all candidates, adding another hurdle to the many that third-party candidates already face, it advocates for two political parties. This constricts political dialogue in Wisconsin, adding an additional advantage to the many that large-party candidates already enjoy, not the least of which is hefty support from monied interests. As was already pointed out, there exists no legitimate criterion to exclude any candidate from a debate. Therefore, no criteria are necessary to include any candidate. With this in mind, we call upon We the People to join us in working for full participation of all candidates and all citizens in Wisconsin's electoral system. Specifically, we call on you to do away with your criteria for appearing in debates, and replace them with a simple policy: equality. Every debate for a given race will include every candidate on the ballot, on the same stage, at the same time, with full and equal participation in the planning and execution of the debate. We look forward to your positive response by email and/or letter within one month of today's date. Thank you. Most sincerely, Linda "Liberty" Sturtzen, Madame Chairman, Libertarian Party of Wisconsin
|