Robert Sarvis on debate exclusion

From the second of a 4-part series in Collegiate Times by Libertarian Rob Sarvis, who ran for US Senate in 2014 and for governor in 2012:

“So why does debate exclusion matter if I had such a small chance of winning anyway?”

“First off, my chances of winning would have been a lot higher if I had had been included in the debates. But more importantly, the voters benefit when a debate or forum goes beyond the carefully scripted nonsense of Republican and Democrat campaigns.”

“Even if zero people voted for me, my presence in the debates would have improved voter education because I was raising important issues that weren’t being talked about.”

“I was the only candidate making non-bullshit arguments that you won’t ever get from the Cuccinellis, Gillespies, Warners and McAuliffes of the world!”

“When I ran for governor, I was the only candidate talking about the public pension system, even though the Virginia Retirement System is substantially underfunded. Politicians love to promise generous future benefits—they will be long gone by the time they come due — but they don’t like having to fund them with taxpayer money today.”

“Good times now, pain later (funded by you, who had no say in the bargain). That’s why our country is $17 trillion in debt, with trillions more in unfunded future obligations.”

“However, on the state level, Virginia is prohibited by the state constitution from running a budget deficit and going into debt. So politicians cheat by not funding the pension system, often fiddling with its assumptions on investment returns to obscure the underfunding.”

“This issue was not raised properly in any of the three gubernatorial debates. If I had been included, it absolutely would have been.”

Click here to read the article.