Libertarian Party Candidates, In and Out of Debates

Last week I
profiled three Libertarian Party candidates who had been
polling well enough to sway the results of their elections—Sean
Haugh (running for federal Senate in North Carolina), David
Patterson (running for Senate from Kentucky, against incumbent
Mitch McConnell), and Adrian Wyllie (running for governor from
Florida.)

Haugh has achieved that rarity for an L.P. candidate–presence
in a public debate with his major party opponents, Democratic
incumbent Kay Hagen and Republican challenger Thom Tillis—last
week. 

You can watch
that debate in full at North Carolina station WECT’s
website.

Haugh was particularly sharp, I think, on the duel between his
opponents over who could seem more willing to staarirt another war
in the Mid-East. (His answer on gay marriage seems to imply the
classically hardcore “no government role in marriage at all” line,
though he doesn’t say it in so many words, and expresses personal
happiness with letting anyone marry anyone.)

Alas, the legal challenge from Kentucky’s Patterson about being
excluded from a debate has failed. Details
from the Courier-Journal:

U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove ruled that Kentucky
Educational Television did not exclude David Patterson from its
Kentucky Tonight program solely because of his political views. The
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled public broadcasters can exclude
candidates based on their level of support but not because of their
political views.

“The First Amendment is not a rule of quantity at any cost,” Van
Tatenhove wrote. “Voters may actually benefit by a forum or debate
that includes only those candidates that have a realistic chance of
winning rather than many voices competing for very limited time.
What KET cannot do is pick and choose candidates based on their
viewpoints. KET has not done so here.”

Patterson is not pleased:

Patterson, in a news release, criticized KET for requiring
candidates raise a minimum of $100,000 to appear in the debate.

“That means you must be rich or have rich friends to even
stand a chance,” Patterson said. “Kentuckians now have their
hard-earned tax dollars being used to deprive them of knowing their
options when they walk into the ballot box.”

Patterson’s full press
release.

The Tallahassee Democrat’s Bob Gabordi muses
over
Wyllie’s so-far failed attempts to sue his way into a debate
this Wednesday, and thinks he ought to play his part:

Wyllie claims in his federal lawsuit that the debate criteria
were changed to keep him out. Debate organizers say the criteria
have been the same since August 2013, when they were announced.They
include requiring that candidates show at least 15-percent support
in “a reputable and independent poll conducted between September 1
and 30, 2014.”

Dean Ridings, president and CEO of the press
association….said the debate organizers have been expecting
the suit by Wyllie and are prepared to defend their decision not to
include him….

But….there are good reasons to allow him on stage.

Either Scott or Crist will be elected governor, have no doubt
about that. But in all likelihood, the margin of victory will be
smaller than the number of votes Wyllie receives. In other words,
how well Wyllie does could be the difference in this election,
assuming he does not pull votes equally from the other two
candidates. Recent polls show the difference between Crist and
Scott too narrow to call.

Why not give voters the opportunity to see if he deserves to be
an alternative to voting for one of the front-runners? Wyllie will
help decide the outcome of this election, so why not have him
there?

Why not indeed? Polling beating the polled spread between
the top two candidates seems like a more useful numerical standard
than 15 percent.