Republicans threaten to skip traditional general election debates

[MrPotatoTed]

6 hours ago, Patine said:

I would love to see every party and independent on the ballot at a debate. But it's unfortunate such a truly representative and democratic event and opportunity is never allowed to happen. 😞

You would need the world’s biggest stage, and each person would have 3 minutes to speak.

[Pringles]

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

You would need the world’s biggest stage, and each person would have 3 minutes to speak.

Tfw you think the 2016 and 2020 debates were bad...

1000+ candidate mayham

[MrPotatoTed]

24 minutes ago, Patine said:

A pitiful excuse, in and of itself, for the further suppression of democracy and true choice at the ballot box. I'm sure something could be arranged if the tiny and elite few only beholden to themselves who organized these debates valued real, free-and-fair elections. It's extremely obvious they don't - and it's almost certainly not just logistics - but it makes a nice sounding excuse for people who don't think about it too much, doesn't it?

Did you have a solution somewhere in that sentence?  Or at least a counterpoint to offer?

[MrPotatoTed]

4 hours ago, Patine said:

I don't arrange TV events for a living, or know anyone personally who does. However, I'm highly dubious of believing, given many modern TV event presentations we see nowadays, that a lack of people who could arrange it, or the actual capability to do so, is the problem. I believe a deliberate lack of will is the problem, frankly.

That’s a cop out though.  It’s extremely easy to see why there would be zero value in rounding up every single mentally ill clown who claims to be running for President and giving every last one of them a microphone at the exact same time.  You scream conspiracy when anyone who gives it a second of thought understands why your idea has absolutely no value.

Even the major parties, faced with 20 candidates vying for the nomination, have had to split up the debates across multiple nights or set public, transparent criteria for who gets a microphone and who doesn’t.

 

 Your idea is clown shoes, and “I don’t arrange tv shows for a living” is a lame excuse to put no effort into the accusations you thrust upon an entire nation.

 

[ShortKing]

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, I'm afraid this elitist attitude that only serves as a bullshit - and very condescending and ivory tower, de facto political, "caste-thinking," or, "the wisdom of the current political establishment is correct because only extremists, radicals, and the insane would dare challenge it or want to bring significant change - look at Trump," style thinking. Can you not grasp how you come across. This attitude is anathema to democracy, and a horrid paternalistic screed to your own people. This utter arrogance that is engineered to prevent meaningful change and evolution beyond the current comfort zone of an elite few who currently hold the real power and are highly unaccountable, non-transparent, and beyond consequence has obvious ulterior motives for THEM - but it doesn't truly serve anyone else, in the long term. But you've already in the past shown for contempt for actual democracy and real will of the people and free and fair elections with quotes YOU have made, such as, "anyone who cannot find Syria on a map has no place having a say in Government," and constantly deriding and ridiculing the concepts of electoral reform and non-establishment politicians - as not just from me - as inherently insane and unworthy. Why don't you just admit where this all seems to lead - that you don't believe the electoral will of the majority of your people without proper and arbitrary electoral tutelage and gated processes is worth spit anymore than Vladimir Putin feels about the majority of his voters?

My favorite thing about this post is that it became overkill at the second sentence already, but it just kept going and finishes out with comparing him to Vladimir Putin for saying that a 20 candidate debate would be unwieldy and impractical. 

[The Blood]

I'm just going to say that with the current lineup of American third parties any debate including more than the Democratic and Republican nominees would be impractical and unneeded. We're talking about the Libertarians and Greens, very ideologically committed fringe groups, not even mentioning the multiple far-left and far-right fringe parties that are effectively non-factors in US politics. Don't get me wrong, I oppose the two-party system, but unless America's electoral system and political machinery are completely reworked by 2024 and multiple competitive third parties are born which represent more Americans than an ideological fringe of voters, I see no reason for more than two candidates to be on stage next election. It's just not needed with how fringe and minor America's current third parties are. I wish there were some actually competitive third parties with more than 1% support from the public, but without substantive reforms to our electoral system that just isn't going to happen.

Edited April 20, 2022 by The Blood

[Cenzonico]

20 hours ago, Patine said:

We're talking about making debates being made more representative of all of the views of everyone running. Where did you get the notion such extreme measures would be needed? Your post seems downright hyperbolic and nonsensical, frankly.

Irony aside, I'll agree that I could have put it in a better way, but it's basically true. You're not gonna be able to just make debates more accessible without also addressing the structural issues of the American political system. Doing only the former won't solve much in the grand scheme of things.

[Cenzonico]

19 minutes ago, Patine said:

Though, in my response to The Blood, immediately above, I did say that all of these issues do need to addressed together, holistically, and that those making said decisions are far too used to making most of their decisions without consulting the views of their own people, or being beholden to them, realistically speaking - which is also a BIG problem, in and of itself, and one further aggravated by an electoral system that effectively locks out all but the two incumbent parties. Do you see this?

I did, I just responded later than I should have.

[Timur]

1) I think if the system is made more friendly to third parties, I think they might get less crazier and become more reasonable parties. Politicians might see a point in joining them and make platform changes happen, etc. New third parties could spring up which are reasonable (and frankly, people who don't like Trump or Biden will be given a choice and turnout would be higher)

2) I think there should be some criteria for joining a debate. The UK doesn't let every single party in the debate. Neither does Germany. In France, to be a candidate, one must collect signatures from mayors. In some countries, one must collect signatures from people to get on the ballot. In South Korea, one must either have gotten a certain percentage of the vote in legislative elections (and/or local elections), have a number of seats (maybe one seat or more) in the National Assembly, or simply poll an average of 5% or more in the polls. 15% is obviously a bad idea. Polling at least 5%, getting ballot access to at least 270 electoral votes, or getting a certain number of signatures would be more reasonable criteria.