135
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
135 points (91.4% liked)
politics
18601 readers
4106 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The rules say it has to be 15%.
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
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.
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.
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.
Didn't use to be the case. Everyone use to say they would make up their minds after watching the debate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Factually incorrect:
That’s from December of last year lol AND are we all accepting poll from Monmouth university as facts? lol
Here's one from a month ago, and an ad hominem retort is flatly unconvincing and uninspiring.
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
Oh...you're one of those.
I don’t think there’s rules this year. The Commission on Presidential Debates isn’t organizing these debates.
And if were polling at 20 they would change the requirement to 21