Here's my letter that I wrote to the LA Times. I suggest that all of you who agree that there is a problem here do the same:

Dear Editorial/Polling Staff,

As the subject line indicates, I'm writing to express my sincere disappointment regarding the lack of Ron Paul being listed in the recent Republican Candidate Bloomberg Poll. I would normally speculate that the reason Dr. Paul would be absent from such a poll would be that he isn't popular or well known enough, but clearly this is wrong since some of the candidates the poll listed actually have less money than Dr. Paul currently has. How is it that the staff at LA Times could even think to omit such a candidate, while at the same time listing Fred Thompson, who isn't even officially running yet? This forces me to conclude that either the LA Times or Bloomberg has an agenda against Dr. Paul, and neither is permissible.

The great irony of this situation is that as an institution of journalism, the LA Times has the crucial responsibility of serving as a forum for public debate and discussion, yet important candidates like Dr. Paul are still left out because they challenge us by thinking more deeply about our current situation. How is it that the LA Times can justify the omission of a presidential candidate whose central tenants are those of honest dialogue and discourse and still perform its civic duties responsibly?

I'm extremely disappointed with the LA Times actions in at the very least sanctioning such blatant disregard to open and honest politics. I would hope that the next time I see such a poll, all of the candidates are properly listed. I thank you for taking the time to listen.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Sanders

The problem is people think that a strong internet presence translates directly into a strong national presence, it doesn't.

How likely is it that online poles are filtering out votes from other countries? The answer is 0%.

How likely is it that online poles filter out people who are too young to vote, in this country or their country of origin? The answer is 0%.

How likely is it that online poles make any effort to filter out unregistered voters or people like felons and aliens who are ineligible to vote? Again, the answer is 0%.

Online poles do not often parallel poles done of likely voters (live in this country, are of legal age, are registered) because they are easily manipulated and make no effort to filter out votes that are meaningless to the election process. The truth is, right now in the national scene of likely voters, Ron Paul doest not rank.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
1. If it works, cheer
2. if it doesn't work, find out why
3. if it catches on fire, BONUS!!!

@PhotonSabreX

Very nice letter. Kudos.

@NutmanIV

He's not against everything the party is against. Even then that is no reason to not include him. To not include him is pointless and stupid. He has a slight chance of winning anyway, even if you don't believe so.

Taking him off of it is just ignoring those that WOULD vote for him. It's hard to get an official poll with him on it if there ISN'T any official polls taking him.

It's retarded.

Any Newspaper that considers itself worthwhile SHOULD include him even if he has 'no chance' otherwise you're just being a biased asshole.

On top of that, most of those online peeps are probably foreign.