Interesting development here that I thought deserved its own thread, one I will be keeping my eyes on, and with my having a lawyer already on the matter with the radio shows, I might confer with the fellow who is taking care of paying the lawyer, along with the lawyer himself, to see to it that we take immediate action if they allow David Patterson to participate and exclude me.

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/09/29/3453972_libertarian-david-patterson-sues.html?rh=1

From the article,

----------------------------------

FRANKFORT — Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate David Patterson wants a federal judge to order Kentucky Educational Television to let him participate in the network's Oct. 13 debate for U.S. Senate candidates.
Patterson, a Harrodsburg police officer, also is seeking speedy action by the court in his 22-page lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Frankfort.
Joining Patterson in the lawsuit are the Libertarian National Committee and The Libertarian Party of Kentucky.

In the spring primary election, candidates had to meet one of four criteria: raise at least $10,000, get support from at least 5 percent of voters in public polls, maintain an active campaign website or make public statements on political issues.
Under the new rules, candidates must get at least 10 percent of the vote in a public poll and meet a higher fundraising threshold: $100,000 for U.S. Senate candidates and $50,000 for U.S. House candidates.
In August, various polls showed Patterson getting at least 5 percent of the vote, the lawsuit said, but he has not reached the 10 percent threshold.
His lawsuit said an email on May 22 from Mike Brower, KET's senior director, to KET executive director Shae Hopkins, stressed that KET staff was "most concerned" about coming up with new qualifying criteria for candidates to "eliminate the write in and other candidate from the forum."
There are three write-in candidates in the race, including Robert Edward Ransdell of Northern Kentucky, who is running on an anti-Jewish platform.

"I firmly believe that there is something wrong here," Patterson said of the new debate criteria. "An Open Records Request showed that KET modified the criteria multiple times during the campaign season. The suspicious timing and ever-increasing thresholds seem to be created to ensure I didn't get to participate. They knew what the ramifications of those changes would be, and chose to act anyway."
Under the last version of the criteria, only Democrats and Republicans would have ever previously qualified to participate in KET's debates, he said.
Patterson noted that the ACLU has called on KET to use the original criteria, under which Grimes and McConnell were invited and under which Patterson said he qualifies for the debate.
Patterson's attorney, Christopher Wiest of Crestview Hills, said no hearing has yet been scheduled in the lawsuit but he expects the court to take action soon.

-----------------------------------------

Even though Patterson is trying to use my candidacy as the motivation behind their excluding him, I would stand for his being able to participate even though he has not satisfied the criteria set by KET ,who is putting on the debate. Of course I would not stand by and accept my being excluded, if they are going to bend the rules for Patterson, then I will insist on being included as well.

I have, months ago, already contacted KET about my desire to be included in the debates they intend to put on with McConnell and Grimes being the two candidates that are currently being permitted access to the forum. I was sent a communication that included the rules they set in place as criteria to be included in the debates. I intend to contact them again ASAP to make clear that if an exception to the rules is made for Patterson then one should and must be made for me as well.

Even though I titled this thread as I have here, I honestly think the reason they have made the debates accessible only to candidates that are with the two big parties is because the system is aiming to make certain those are the only two voices that are heard, especially important as people get more and more frustrated with the current system of electoral politics. In recent elections here there have been other write-in candidates that have ran for office, especially in the primaries, and the people at KET (man in charge of the debates is a Bill Goodman, have not been able to determine his ethnicity) seem to want to control which candidates get access to the people and which ones don't and they want to shut out everyone who does not have an "R" or a "D" next to their name, not just me.

However they (the system overall) will work to do everything they can to shut me out as we have seen over the past few weeks, and now the Libertarian is putting the blame on me for his being shut out. Just another unexpected and unforeseen thing that has taken place, all because a WN had the nerve to try. Should others do the same in the future I am certain that unexpected victories and happenings can happen in their case as well if they put in the effort and work needed to ensure that the message gets out.