Thursday, August 09, 2007

Eighty Percent say "YES" to the inclusion of 3rd party candidates in debates for Pgh Mayor's Race

Today's Trib newspaper (printed edition) has news of yesterday's KQV Radio Poll. Yes, Trib Editor, I am a subscriber. After the poll closed is the first I am blogging about this question. And, I did NOT call in to record a vote on this matter myself.

Several debates with Pittsburgh mayoral candidate are planned by the local broadcast media. Republican Mark DeSantis will debate incumbent Democrat Luke Ravenstahl. Broadcast executive must now decide whether to include two so-called third-party ballot-qualified candidates, Libertarian Mark Rauterkus and Socialst Workers Party member Ryan Scott.

Do you think those third party candidates whose names will be on the Nov 6 ballot for Pittsburgh mayor should be included in the debates?

YES = 80 percent (191 votes)
NO = 20 percent (47 votes)
Of course citizens and voters of the region are open minded. Of course the crony mentality to label others and discount opportunities for others thrives among Grant Street among politicians. The majority want to hear from all voices.

But, what will the executives of the mainstream media outlets want?

Will the ones who control the airwaves want to side with the people or choose to play it safe?


Anonymous said...

That's right, Pittsburgh! 250 people voted and almost 200 said they wanted a 3rd Party inclusive debate.

I have never seen such a resounding mandate!

These candidates must EARN the right...and not be handed a self-serving post. Most of that 190 some folks who voted probably wanted to see the Socialist Party dude for the first time.

No sane human being wants to hear what he has to say. We are not a socialist community.

Mark Rauterkus said...

I sometimes wonder just how much of a 'socialist community' Pittsburgh is -- really.

The tunnel is going under the river for light-rail. Sounds like a great Socialist victory.

The bridge falling down in MN -- another big socialist talking point, for sure.

Funny thing about 'rights' -- they are not earned. They are 'rights.' It is the votes that are earned. The votes should not be 'given.'

For instance, you don't have to 'earn' an opportunity to cast a vote in an election -- because you have a job/land/male gender. No. Everyone 18 and older has a 'right' to vote. That right is not 'earned.' That is why it is a 'right.'

I contend, unlike that of Tom L, frequent blog poster and 'running mate' who is an 'R' -- that the earning of the opportunity was able to transpire with the signatures to get onto the ballot.

There are times in life when everyone is equal. There are other times when public officials don't have to be equal to the masses.

Thomas Leturgey said...

While I don't mind someone being on the ballot, it's completely different to "earn" the right to be in a debate...especially if one is televised.

Let's be honest, a lot of these "candidates" are in the race for self-serving reasons. Would you suggest that each candidate should be involved...and what if one is a certified kook who wants the podium for truly crackpot rationale?

I'd have to agree with our anonymous friend...I certainly don't want to see a tiny "niche" candidate like the Socialist in a TV debate.

Certainly a vast majority of that 191 that voted in the KQV poll voted to see their "ACLU is the way to go" supporter of the passe.