{news} Green Party Candidate excluded from debtaes

[Green Party-CT]

      Green Party Candidate Excluded From Debates        By Lauren Garrison
Norwalk Citizen        Although he collected the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot in the Nov. 7 election, Richard Duffee, the Green Party candidate for the 4th Congressional District, is not been invited to participate in the League of Women Voters' debates.   The other candidates in the race Republican incumbent Christopher Shays, Democrat Diane Farrell and Libertarian Phil Maymin will take part in the debates, which are scheduled on Oct. 5 at 7 p.m. at Norwalk Community College and on Oct. 17 at 7:30 p.m. at the Clune Performing Arts Center of Wilton High School.   In an e-mail to the Norwalk Citizen-News on Monday, Duffee said he'd been notified that he was not invited because he "had not shown sufficient evidence of broad voter support or of broad financial support."   "I asked how much voter support was broad and how much financial support was broad but have so far received no answer," Duffee wrote.   The LWV describes itself as "a nonpartisan,
 nonprofit political organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government."   According to the Connecticut LWV's Web site, to participate in debates a candidate must demonstrate that he or she has "ballot access in accordance with Connecticut election laws; a formal campaign (headquarters, staff, position papers, campaign appearances); evidence of broad voter support (can be evidenced by number of volunteers); and financial support (contributions from a significant number of contributors indicating broad-based support)." A committee consisting of the Connecticut LWV's two co-presidents, vice president of communications, vice president of voter services and treasurer determines if candidates meet these requirements.   To most effectively keep voters informed, the committee tries to be "as inclusive as possible" in inviting candidates to share their views at debates, Vice President of Voter Services Karen Rosen said in a telephone
 interview Tuesday. "We understand and believe that ideas that come from third parties are often the ideas that make the difference," she said.   So why isn't Duffee, who has expressed strong views on a number of issues on his Web site and blog and in position papers, being asked to share his ideas?   According to Rosen, the LWV has no specific criteria to determine if a candidate's support is "broad." Rather, the committee considers each candidate's volunteers and donors and asks questions such as "Are they all from the candidate's party, or from other parties as well?" and "Are they all from one town, or are they spread out in the district?"   Rosen explained that this type of analysis provides a more accurate representation of the candidate's chances in the election than the number of signatures he receives to be included on the ballot, since those signatures indicate nothing about the signers' intention to vote for the candidate. "Just because people sign those things
 doesn't mean they're going to vote for [the candidate]," said Rosen. "Let's face it every time I see one of those things, I'll sign it because if that person is taking the initiative, I want them to have the opportunity to run for office." A volunteer or donor who has supported the candidate throughout the campaign is much more likely to vote for him in the election, she said.   In addition, Rosen noted, the LWV does have a process by which a candidate excluded from the debates may appeal.   In a telephone interview Wednesday, Duffee said he feels the LWV's procedure for determining candidate eligibility for the debates is "arbitrary." A system that clearly outlines the requirements for eligibility in terms of numbers of volunteers and amounts of funding would be much more appropriate and objective, he said. Without such concrete standards, it is impossible to determine that "only the things you say are relevant are affecting the [committee's decision]," he said.  
 Furthermore, Duffee believes the way the LWV determines eligibility is fundamentally flawed because it focuses on campaign funding. "We're in the middle of horrific electoral corruption," said Duffee. "To say that the more money you have, the more viable your candidacy is seems to me to be a notion that really should be outmoded by now." On the one hand, he said, the LWV, "is backing things like public finance of elections," while on the other hand it is "saying that private collection of funds is a criterion for being allowed to speak to the public. So that's quite contradictory."   In addition to his belief that requiring a candidate to collect private funds in order to have a "viable campaign" is wrong, Duffee is a strong opponent of wasting money in general. "Money shouldn't be wasted on campaigns," he said.   Duffee said he has friends and relatives in India living on around $40 a month, and his own family has a policy of donating any income it earns over the world
 average to people who have less. "We give to people who have less money because of the law of diminishing returns, which states that the amount of human benefit that's to be derived from an expenditure depends upon the income level of the expenditure." That is, when Duffee sends money to India, the recipients benefit significantly more from the extra purchasing power than Duffee himself would.   Duffee said he thinks any candidate on the ballot should be allowed in the debates, whether or not his or her campaign is considered to be "viable." Duffee said he does not have any hopes of winning the election but is aiming to capture 1 percent of the votes, which would ensure that the Green Party's candidate in the next election would not have to go through the time-consuming process of collecting signatures to appear on the ballot and could instead use the time to focus on the campaign.   By running for office, Duffee said he's trying to get his views heard and make people
 realize that Shays needs to leave office for the good of the country. Duffee said he thinks that when people hear his views, they will be compelled to side with him rather than Shays. But rather than vote for Duffee, he believes they are likely to give their votes to Farrell, whose opinions are more closely aligned with his own than are Shays' and who has a much better shot of winning the election.   Duffee has been informed of the LWV's appeal process and said he might make use of it.   Neither Shays nor Farrell could be reached for comment before press time, but on Wednesday, Jan Spiegel, a spokeswoman for Farrell's campaign, said Farrell believes "it is up to the organizers of the debate to set the rules." Similarly, Michael Sohn, Shays' campaign manager, said, "It was left up to the debate organizers to choose which candidates they wanted to [participate]."   Also on Wednesday, Maymin said he had no comment about Duffee's exclusion. "I would debate any of my opponents
 any time if there was enough public support and an impartial moderator," he said.
        


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20060921/1bd69b0e/attachment.html>