Friday, September 22, 2006
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
 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 League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.
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 of Women Voters is strictly nonpartisan; it neither supports nor opposes candidates for office at any level of government. At the same time, the League is wholeheartedly political - working to influence policy through education and advocacy. It is the original grassroots citizen network, directed by the consensus of its members across the country.
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.
• Share This Article!
 Listen to this article
Help The Cincinnati Beacon Grow! Participate in Social Networking!
Members
Register
Tell us what you think!
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
|