 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
|
||
|
||||
 |
|||||
|
8/28/2006 Putting the Capital 'D' Back Into Democracy By Jack E. Lohman The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com. So here we have it. Three gubernatorial candidates went through the legal channels and electoral obligations, filing papers and getting the requisite number of constituent signatures to demonstrate voter support. Good for them. That’s what I call Democracy with a capital “D.” But that’s where democracy ended in our state’s gubernatorial race. Those controlling the debates and polls have decided that the third-party candidate, Nelson Eisman, doesn’t deserve to be in the race because he hasn’t “polled” as high as the other two, Jim Doyle and Mark Green from the Duopoly Party. How can he even “poll” if they don’t put his name on the survey? Eisman wasn’t listed as a candidate in the early polls. If asked if you support either the Republican or Democratic candidate and you responded with Eisman of the Wisconsin Green Party, your answer went into the “undecided” column. Though even the “undecideds” got 14 percent, how can people accurately respond to a poll if they haven’t seen him in a debate? How would they even know he is a candidate? They’d have been more honest with a none-of-the-above category. However, I have “decided.” I’ve decided that I don’t like the ethics of the Duopoly Party candidates. And if our state legislature is to be controlled by a Duopoly, I want a neutral balance at the top -- an unfettered referee to stop our billions in political giveaways. But with the current thinking of the pollsters and media-run debate committee, what else can they expect but a weak third-party candidate? They constructed this game and shouldn’t be surprised at its outcome. They’ve also proven that only those beholden to big campaign contributors have any chance of running for office. That’s sad. This is not the way democracy should work. The debates should precede the polls -- not the other way around. All candidates should be included, not just the two approved by the pollsters and media. If the airwaves indeed belong to the public, the broadcast media should be fair to these public owners, at least at election time. Notably, Nelson Eisman is the only candidate to agree to a League of Women Voters debate in Green Bay, presumably because the duo doesn’t want to debate a non-conflicted candidate. My guess is that they are tickled pink that they won’t have to confront him here, either, and could have even helped influence his exclusion. I personally haven’t decided whether I’m going to vote for Eisman, but I have decided that I want to hear from him. I want to know where he stands on election and ethics reform -- two issues the Duopoly candidates would like to sweep under the rug because they are each major abusers of the system. And they are the root cause of all other state and federal problems. I want to know Eisman’s position on universal health care, an issue currently being blocked by $1.4 million in campaign contributions from state health care interests. Yeah, you guessed it -- with cash flowing to the Duopoly Party incumbents. Yes, I have definitely decided that I want to know more about these things, and so do most voters. And importantly, I have decided that I never want my options closed by some committee, and I want those in charge to see that Eisman is given equal time to demonstrate his strengths and weaknesses. I want someone in these debates that will discuss the issues the Duopoly Party doesn’t want to discuss. Let Eisman make it or break it on his own, but don’t do it for him. In short, I want the capital “D” put back into Democracy, and the debate committee to ensure the public’s best interest. -- Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and founder of http://www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org. He can be reached at jlohman@execpc.com. |
|