The following is taken from Michael Badnarik's blog at www.badnarik.org. I replied to the people at opendebates.org and told them that I felt they had become as bad as the monsters they set out to fight, and that their entire agenda seems to revolve around getting Nader (on the ballot in 39 states) into the debates, but not other third party candidates (such as Badnarik, on the ballot in 48 or 49, depending on the results of a court decision in Oklahoma).

The press release below was posted at http://www.opendebates.org/news/pressreleases/zogbypoll.html

Some contact information for Open Debates staff:
Telephone: 202 628 9195
Fax: 202 628 9196

George Farah, Executive Director gfarah@citizensdebate.org, gfarah@opendebates.org
Christopher Shaw, Organizing Director cshaw@opendebates.org

Board of Directors:
John B. Anderson
Angela “Bay” Buchanan
Pat Choate
Jon Hanson
George Farah
Larry Noble
Jamin B. Raskin
Randall Robinson
Paul M. Weyrich

Open Debates, National Press Building, 529 14th St. NW, Suite 1201, Washington, DC 20045
September 22, 2004
Contact: Chris Shaw (202) 628-9195

Open Debates commissioned a Zogby poll of likely voters nationwide to determine which candidates the American people want to see included in the 2004 presidential debates. The poll found that 40 percent of likely voters want to see presidential debates that only include John Kerry and George W. Bush; 57 percent of likely voters would like to see “other candidates” included. (See Question 1 below)

Of the four third-party candidates who have the potential to be on enough state ballots to win an Electoral College Majority, only independent candidate Ralph Nader attracted support for his inclusion in the debates from a majority of likely voters. Fifty-seven percent of likely voters believe that Nader “should participate” in the upcoming presidential debates with Kerry and Bush, and 40 percent believe that Nader “should not participate” in the debates. (See Table 1 below.)

Were Nader to maintain a position on enough state ballots to win an Electoral College majority, he would be the only non-major party candidate to meet the criteria of the newly-formed Citizens’ Debate Commission. The Citizens’ Debate Commission has adopted criteria that would include candidates who 1) are on enough state ballots to win an Electoral College AND 2) either register five percent in pre-debate polls or a separate poll show that a majority of likely voters support their inclusion.

Less than 50 percent of likely voters supported the inclusion of third-party candidates Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party, David Cobb of the Green Party, and Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation, will be excluding Ralph Nader from the 2004 presidential debates.

“The CPD is defying the wishes of the American people, and serving the interests of the Republican and Democratic Parties, rather than the public interest,” said George Farah, executive director of Open Debates.

More Democrats and Republicans supported the inclusion of Nader in the debates, than opposed his inclusion. Sixty-two percent of independents supported Nader’s inclusion.

“We need to replace the CPD with a genuinely nonpartisan sponsor that will include the candidates the American people want to see,” said Chris Shaw, organizing director of Open Debates.

The CPD was created by and for the Republican and Democratic Parties. In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement “to take over the presidential debates” from the League of Women Voters, and fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the CPD. Fahrenkopf and Kirk still co-chair the CPD, and every four years, the CPD implements contracts jointly drafted by the Republican and Democratic nominees.

Methodology
Zogby International conducted interviews of 1,066 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 9/17/04 through 9/19/04. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest percent and might not total 100.