I think anyone on the ballot should be included. Do you only want viable candidates to debate? Is yes, that would have excluded Dawn Clark Netsch and Jim Ryan.
Larry Horse
· 3 years ago
There should be at least one debate with all candidates on the ballot.
Larry Horse
· 3 years ago
Come to think of it though, if there's only one such debate, then the two major party candidates would likely just sit out that one and it would just be a 3rd party debate, which would be silly.
moderate - half way between cr
· 3 years ago
If you can get on the ballot in Illinois, you deserve to be in the debates.
VanillaMan
· 3 years ago
If you think voting is like shopping, then you would want all your choices lined up on a shelf to compare them. If you take voting seriously, you would recognize that running for an office, and running an office are two different things.
Third parties are only viable if they are able to govern, not just run for an office. The last third party to govern was the Republican party, which were remnants of the Whigs and disgruntled Democrats. There was a pool of resources and experience from which to draw credible leaders.
If you look at recent history of Western Europe, where third parties are more successful electorially, you will also see that these parties could not govern and didn't have the ability to operate a government.
Anyone hoping that a debate will uncover a credible candidate with the ability to govern is not being realistic. Anyone thinking a debate among the candidates regardless of popular support would somehow be beneficial, is delusional.
Campaigns and governing is serious big business. After one term of what should have been a credible Democratic governor, with state and national legislative experience, showing how ill-prepared he was for the Office, it appears that both parties need to get real. Each time Blagojevich flopped because of mismanagement, poor policy, and amateur staff mishaps, his party should have to explained why it selected him to even run in 2002.
We don't need a debate full of bozos. We need political parties doing their jobs and nominating credible candidates capable of governing. Calls for open debates for all is anarchy and foolish, in my opinion.
Anon
· 3 years ago
All ballot qualified candidates should be included in the debates. The voters have a right to be informed about their choices. Excluding candidates is undemocratic, and the media should expose such tactics whenever possible. Visit www.opendebates.org for more information.
Boone Logan Square
· 3 years ago
I would like to hear the argument for excluding candidates on the ballot from the debates.
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
Boone Logan Square -- the typical media retort is that if any candidate has polling below 10% (or 5%, or whatever) than they are excluded from debates because there is not enough voter interest.
The paradox is obvious...
I say include 'em and any Repub or Dem who sits out such debates should be labeled a party pooper by the media.
Veritas
· 3 years ago
And here I thought a candidate need only collect the requisite petition signatures in order to prove his viability.
Larry Horse
· 3 years ago
Perhaps a good threshold to encourage these parties to build up some organization (like anyone in power wants that) is to let any party with at least one member in the GA be in the debates.
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
Vanilla Man's "...viable if they are able to govern."
That would exclude the current Democrat candidate.
cermak_rd
· 3 years ago
Shouldn't it be up to the organization actually running the debate? For instance, if the League of Women Voters is sponsoring the debate, then they should be able to decide to whom to extend an invitation.
Lovie's Leather
· 3 years ago
Correct, cermak_rd, those who sponsor the debates should be the ones to decide. Maybe the Capitolfax might sponsor a debate? with Rich as moderator?
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
Why can't the public be trusted to decide who is best qualified?
If the mainstream parties can't make their case in debates about how incapable a third party is of governing, then they probably don't deserve to govern either.
If you don't like third party spoilers, then make Illinois' ballot access laws even more absurd to the entire world, as well as our Constitution. Otherwise, open it up so there's enough candidates and views to prevent spoilers. The fringe will still lose.
The whining about third party candidates from the mainstream parties is pathetic, especially since they created the uncompetitive spoiler system.
Is it any wonder the public is ready to cast a pox on both parties and throw the bums out?
voice of reason
· 3 years ago
Ability to govern is obviously hard to determine via popular support. The current parties have been underwhelming in the governing department, so why shouldn't a third party have a shot at it?
If there is a three-candidate debate, how will we know who is able to govern, from what we can see in that context?
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
Hopefully, we'll have full linkage to all debates, questionnaires, coverage, candidate's websites, etc. right here!
That would certainly make voter education easy, increase hits, and generally help support Rich's excellent public service.
A pox on both their houses
· 3 years ago
The two-party system is responsible for most of the culture of corruption in this state. With the first-past-the-post system, it's hard enough for third parties to have a shot at winning; at least let them debate if they make it on the ballot.
Meanwhile, wouldn't a proportional representation system be better for everybody (except for the allegedly corrupt party bosses on both sides of the aisle)?
ZC
· 3 years ago
I think Larry Horse is on the money here. There are so many organizations offering debates in Illinois, the major party candidates would simply decline debates where a third party figure was invited. Judy would probably be happy to show up, but Blago would stay away, and so would the media.
It's a little ridiculous to me how much leeway front-runners have to cherry-pick when and where to debate - there ought to be some standardized, League-of-Women-Voters type three-debate format like there is on the national level. More needs to be written about how the debate system in Illinois discriminates not just against third parties, but against all challengers to incumbents in general.
If the Greens want to impact the 2006 election, their best bet is the traditional one for an American third party: scorched-earth tactics where they try not to win but to pull one of the two candidates down (in this case the Democrats), trying in the process to pull the Democrats left in the future. As Nader showed in 2000, this can really blow up in your face, but as Reverend Meeks has shown, the tactic can produce responsiveness from Blago.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 3 years ago
You guys talk about debates as if they mattered.
Bubba-Lou
· 3 years ago
Per the ISBE website (elections.il.gov) -- Bill Scheurer apparently pulled it off in the 8th: he filed this afternoon as the Moderate Party. And this just in (from under the radar): the Independence Party filed a full slate about an hour ago.
Papa Legba
· 3 years ago
You are right YDD. The indictments are whats going to matter.
Ashur Odishoo
· 3 years ago
What about other races? Should there be a mandatory (statutory) invitation? What about equal press coverage? The Republicans don't get equal opportunity in Chicago.
Ashur Odishoo Candidate State Representative 11th District
Lovie's Leather
· 3 years ago
Let me tell you something... if Rich Whitney and Judy showed up for a debate. Blago would be there. All that somebody needs to do is invite all 3, Judy will publicly accept... and then if Blago doesn't show up, he looks like a total ass as Whitney and Topinka gang up on him.
Yes all candidates on the ballot should be included in all debates. That is democracy and is the principle which our great country was founded upon. Maybe Honest Abe should have been left out of the debates since his party was "new". It is simply anti-American to discriminate based on political affiliation and views.
If a candidate is excluded, the candidates that were invited should HAVE TO claim that debate as an in-kind donation and the organizations and media sponsors should have to consider it a campaign donation.
In federal elections, that would forbid media organizations from sponsoring exclusive debates. In state and local races, it would bring into question the non-profit/non-partisan status of organizations like the League of Women Voters. They are free to discriminate and exclude any candidates they like, but they should have to face the consequences of their discriminatory actions.
In 2002 Cal Skinner was invited to the League of Women Voter's debate and Blago and JRyan turned them down for the first time in 30 some years. In 2004, the League of Women Voters changed their policy about inviting "other" candidates to their debate to make it much harder for "other" candidates to be invited. They lost my respect and my previous support for selling out and becoming political discriminators.
BTW, Great column Rich. My whining is seeing some results. :)
Blackjack
· 3 years ago
rumor has it that since he was booted from the meeks and mcsweney campaigns charlie johnston is helping the greens thinking that he can beat judy that way.
Hindsight 20/20
· 3 years ago
I appreciate that you're willing to give third party candidates the coverage they're due.
But as for using Perot as the poster-child of "goofy" third-party candidates, I think there’s several more appropriate targets than Perot.
Perot was the most successful third party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
Some of Perot’s “goofy†comments from back in 1992 look remarkably farsighted and prophetic today. “That giant sucking sound†of American jobs going south has been a problem…..and the US borders are the pressure relief valve of Mexicans coming north for fair employment as a result of that “free trade agreementâ€Â.
Also, I'd have to say that goofy gasoline tax he proposed probably would have spurred some conservation and investment in alternative energy prior to us importing 60% of our energy products, contributing to the massive trade deficits, dependence on foreign oil, and China holding hundreds of billions of dollars of US debt (metaphorically speaking, it’s an economic dagger to our throat).
But I tend to think it’s goofier that our $8.4 trillion dollar debt equates to roughly $30,000 per U.S citizen (man, women, and child)…..when the minimum wage is less than $11,000/year.
Maybe Lyndon LaRouche would have been a better poster-child for goofy third party candidates?
Jeff Trigg
· 3 years ago
Hindsight, Lyndon LaRouche was never a third party candidate. LaRouche always runs as a Democrat and has never been affiliated with any other political party.
But I agree, there are better goofy examples than Perot, although hardly anyone would recognize their names.
Another point is that the Rs and Ds have a lot more goofy candidates than third parties do, with LaRouche (D), David Duke(R), Andy Martin(R) as prime examples.
Lovie's Leather
· 3 years ago
and Jeff, don't forget Rod Blagojevich(D)...
Beowulf
· 3 years ago
The "Killer Tomato" in the Illinois Governor's race is going to be Rich Whitney-the Carbondale attorney who is the Green party's candidate for Governor of Illinois. He is suddenly a very important person in Illinois politics.
There are going to be enough dissatisfied GOP and Democrat voters in November that will cast their votes for Mr. Whitney that he will clearly be the person who decides whether Blagojevich or Topinka is going to be our next governor.
Rich Whitney alias "The Spoiler"
Anon
· 3 years ago
Democrats control the House, Senate, and Governor's mansion here in Illinois; and they have the power to implement Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in order to eliminate the spoiler effect. Several IRV bills have been introduced in the Illinois General Assembly (HB0843 in the 94th, HB4011 and HB3301 in the 93rd, and HB6293 and SB1789 in the 92nd.) None of these bills have made it out of the Rules Committee, despite some having a large number of co-sponsors. These bills can't come to a vote unless the Rules Committee votes to refer them, but the 3 Democrats who represent the majority on this committee continue to let these bills die. It's the Speaker who appoints these members, so the ultimate responsibility for any spoiled elections in Illinois must be laid squarely at Michael Madigan's feet. This attempt to limit voter choice is an attack on democracy.
Democrats can eliminate the spoiler effect any time they want in Illinois. The truth is that they don't want to eliminate it, because it's the only thing keeping a large number of voters from moving over to the Green Party.
Place blame where blame belongs--it's the Democrats who have the power to eliminate the spoiler effect, but they refuse to act. They shouldn't be allowed to limit competition in our political marketplace of ideas by refusing to fix the system. They need to be held accountable.
Michael Madigan is playing chicken. He's hoping that people will be fooled into buying the spoiler argument and Greens will be forced into submission. He's wrong; and if it takes a spoiled election to prove that, so be it. The Democratic Party deserves to be spoiled, and it only has itself to blame.
In fact, the threat of spoiled elections may be the only thing capable of convincing Democrats like Mike Madigan to actually implement IRV.
All Comments
I think anyone on the ballot should be included. Do you only want viable candidates to debate? Is yes, that would have excluded Dawn Clark Netsch and Jim Ryan.
Third parties are only viable if they are able to govern, not just run for an office. The last third party to govern was the Republican party, which were remnants of the Whigs and disgruntled Democrats. There was a pool of resources and experience from which to draw credible leaders.
If you look at recent history of Western Europe, where third parties are more successful electorially, you will also see that these parties could not govern and didn't have the ability to operate a government.
Anyone hoping that a debate will uncover a credible candidate with the ability to govern is not being realistic. Anyone thinking a debate among the candidates regardless of popular support would somehow be beneficial, is delusional.
Campaigns and governing is serious big business. After one term of what should have been a credible Democratic governor, with state and national legislative experience, showing how ill-prepared he was for the Office, it appears that both parties need to get real. Each time Blagojevich flopped because of mismanagement, poor policy, and amateur staff mishaps, his party should have to explained why it selected him to even run in 2002.
We don't need a debate full of bozos. We need political parties doing their jobs and nominating credible candidates capable of governing. Calls for open debates for all is anarchy and foolish, in my opinion.
The paradox is obvious...
I say include 'em and any Repub or Dem who sits out such debates should be labeled a party pooper by the media.
That would exclude the current Democrat candidate.
If the mainstream parties can't make their case in debates about how incapable a third party is of governing, then they probably don't deserve to govern either.
If you don't like third party spoilers, then make Illinois' ballot access laws even more absurd to the entire world, as well as our Constitution. Otherwise, open it up so there's enough candidates and views to prevent spoilers. The fringe will still lose.
The whining about third party candidates from the mainstream parties is pathetic, especially since they created the uncompetitive spoiler system.
Is it any wonder the public is ready to cast a pox on both parties and throw the bums out?
If there is a three-candidate debate, how will we know who is able to govern, from what we can see in that context?
That would certainly make voter education easy, increase hits, and generally help support Rich's excellent public service.
Meanwhile, wouldn't a proportional representation system be better for everybody (except for the allegedly corrupt party bosses on both sides of the aisle)?
It's a little ridiculous to me how much leeway front-runners have to cherry-pick when and where to debate - there ought to be some standardized, League-of-Women-Voters type three-debate format like there is on the national level. More needs to be written about how the debate system in Illinois discriminates not just against third parties, but against all challengers to incumbents in general.
If the Greens want to impact the 2006 election, their best bet is the traditional one for an American third party: scorched-earth tactics where they try not to win but to pull one of the two candidates down (in this case the Democrats), trying in the process to pull the Democrats left in the future. As Nader showed in 2000, this can really blow up in your face, but as Reverend Meeks has shown, the tactic can produce responsiveness from Blago.
Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District
If a candidate is excluded, the candidates that were invited should HAVE TO claim that debate as an in-kind donation and the organizations and media sponsors should have to consider it a campaign donation.
In federal elections, that would forbid media organizations from sponsoring exclusive debates. In state and local races, it would bring into question the non-profit/non-partisan status of organizations like the League of Women Voters. They are free to discriminate and exclude any candidates they like, but they should have to face the consequences of their discriminatory actions.
In 2002 Cal Skinner was invited to the League of Women Voter's debate and Blago and JRyan turned them down for the first time in 30 some years. In 2004, the League of Women Voters changed their policy about inviting "other" candidates to their debate to make it much harder for "other" candidates to be invited. They lost my respect and my previous support for selling out and becoming political discriminators.
BTW, Great column Rich. My whining is seeing some results. :)
But as for using Perot as the poster-child of "goofy" third-party candidates, I think there’s several more appropriate targets than Perot.
Perot was the most successful third party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
Some of Perot’s “goofy†comments from back in 1992 look remarkably farsighted and prophetic today. “That giant sucking sound†of American jobs going south has been a problem…..and the US borders are the pressure relief valve of Mexicans coming north for fair employment as a result of that “free trade agreementâ€Â.
Also, I'd have to say that goofy gasoline tax he proposed probably would have spurred some conservation and investment in alternative energy prior to us importing 60% of our energy products, contributing to the massive trade deficits, dependence on foreign oil, and China holding hundreds of billions of dollars of US debt (metaphorically speaking, it’s an economic dagger to our throat).
But I tend to think it’s goofier that our $8.4 trillion dollar debt equates to roughly $30,000 per U.S citizen (man, women, and child)…..when the minimum wage is less than $11,000/year.
Maybe Lyndon LaRouche would have been a better poster-child for goofy third party candidates?
But I agree, there are better goofy examples than Perot, although hardly anyone would recognize their names.
Another point is that the Rs and Ds have a lot more goofy candidates than third parties do, with LaRouche (D), David Duke(R), Andy Martin(R) as prime examples.
There are going to be enough dissatisfied GOP and Democrat voters in November that will cast their votes for Mr. Whitney that he will clearly be the person who decides whether Blagojevich or Topinka is going to be our next governor.
Rich Whitney alias "The Spoiler"
Democrats can eliminate the spoiler effect any time they want in Illinois. The truth is that they don't want to eliminate it, because it's the only thing keeping a large number of voters from moving over to the Green Party.
Place blame where blame belongs--it's the Democrats who have the power to eliminate the spoiler effect, but they refuse to act. They shouldn't be allowed to limit competition in our political marketplace of ideas by refusing to fix the system. They need to be held accountable.
Michael Madigan is playing chicken. He's hoping that people will be fooled into buying the spoiler argument and Greens will be forced into submission. He's wrong; and if it takes a spoiled election to prove that, so be it. The Democratic Party deserves to be spoiled, and it only has itself to blame.
In fact, the threat of spoiled elections may be the only thing capable of convincing Democrats like Mike Madigan to actually implement IRV.