135
submitted 6 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Drusas@kbin.run 4 points 6 months ago

The rules say it has to be 15%.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 4 points 6 months ago

That's way too high a requirement. I don't like this guy but it's essential we start getting more than two options each election

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

We have more than two options each election. In 2020 there were 4, in 2012 and 2016 there were 7, in 2004 and 2008 there were 6, in 2000 there were 8. Having options isn't the problem. It's that all the losers get out of running and losing, is absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is the winner.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 0 points 6 months ago

Those are never taken seriously because they're never in the debate, which for most of my life where people actually made their decision on who to vote for.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No, they're never taken seriously because it's a winner-take-all system. The number of people who make a voting decision based on debates is vanishingly small, if it ever even mattered.

edit: Proof that debates are irrelevant.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 0 points 6 months ago

Didn't use to be the case. Everyone use to say they would make up their minds after watching the debate.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

That study looked into 62 elections in ten countries since 1952. I'm sure people said the debates helped them make up their minds, but the statistical evidence doesn't bear that out.

[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

It’s an arbitrary percentage they came up with in 2000. It should be lower, and it’s not like they stick closely to their own made up rules.

Lowering the percentage would be another step toward breaking this ridiculous 2 party system.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Lowering the percentage puts us back in 1992, and we saw where that led us: to today, where the 2 party system is as strong as it ever was. Giving RFK airtime does nothing to meaningfully alter the US political landscape, or the fundamental structure of our election rules.

[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Hard disagree. He has the possibility to siphon off enough trump voters to maybe give Biden a way to win. We also didn’t have two 80 year olds on stage back then. The people deserve debate edit: this even if all we are allowed to add is someone with a starved-dead worm in their brain.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

He also has the possibility to siphon off enough Biden voters to maybe give Trump a way to win. Neither of them have an incentive to give him airtime, and no offense, but as a society I'm not sure I'd say we "deserve" anything, much less a WWE-style debate where a bunch of old dudes yell at each other.

edit to add: Presidential Debates Have Shockingly Little Effect on Election Outcomes.

[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There is no way he’s pulling anyone away from Biden lol Especially at this point considering Biden’s stance on Israel. AND yes, the society should see what state the “democracy” is in, it’s the only way for people to maybe get the hint that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Edit: if debates don’t have effect on outcomes, why would it even matter then? lol

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Edit: if debates don’t have effect on outcomes, why would it even matter then? lol

I'm quite literally not saying it does. You're the one hyperventilating over his exclusion. I think it's just white noise, and the parties are free to do whatever the fuck they want, because they're private organizations.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That’s from December of last year lol AND are we all accepting poll from Monmouth university as facts? lol

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Here's one from a month ago, and an ad hominem retort is flatly unconvincing and uninspiring.

[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Again, are we considering polls to be counted as factual? Especially pre-dead-worm-in-brain announcement? Polling is inaccurate and the current methods of capture are outdated and don’t offer a reflective sample. Polls are not something you can say are factual

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Oh...you're one of those.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I don’t think there’s rules this year. The Commission on Presidential Debates isn’t organizing these debates.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago

And if were polling at 20 they would change the requirement to 21

this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
135 points (91.4% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3666 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS