Wisconsin Greens and Libertarians call upon We the People to include all
candidates in forums and debates
Wisconsin Green Party
www.wisconsingreenparty.org
July 17th, 2007
Contacts:
Linda "Liberty" Sturtzen, Chair, Libertarian Party of Wisconsin, chair@lpwi.org,
800-236-9236
Ruth Weill Co-Chair, Wisconsin Green Party, spokesperson@wisconsingreenparty.org
414-350-2107
Ron Hardy, Co-chair, Wisconsin Green Party, spokesperson@wisconsingreenparty.org
920-292-8129
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:
We The People/Wisconsin, Inc. 17 July, 2007
c/o Wisconsin State Journal
1901 Fish Hatchery Road
Madison, WI 53713
To the Board of We the People:
Greetings! We write you today, representing the Wisconsin Green Party
and the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin, to discuss the matter of your criteria for participation in the debates you organize.
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
chair@lpwi.org
Ruth Weill, Chair, Wisconsin Green Party
moondog@execpc.com
Ron Hardy, Chair, Wisconsin Green Party
ronaldkanehardy@gmail.com