Slashdot Mirror
FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates (muckrock.com)
v3rgEz writes: Wish that you could have tuned into all the primary debates without a cable subscription? You're not alone. According to MuckRock analysis of primary-related FCC complaints, that was one of the most common complaints, as well as allegations of corporate bias, candidate preferences by the networks, and general gripes about how corporate supposedly open debates have become. I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
In America?
I'm shocked.
Hint: the candidates themselves are bought and sold on the marketplace. They're rich fucks trying to get elected to better serve their corporate masters, who bankrolled their campaigns. What does it matter if their lies and their antics are broadcast on Fox or PBS?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
What with the usual bragging about a free market, neoliberalism and capitalism. Corporate bias for a candidate ? Neo-liberal version of capitalism. Live with it, or emigrate to Costa Rica, Europe, New Zealand.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
The sad thing is that many liberal will read this and it will play straight into their bias on how they think conservatives really think.
Despite living in an area where Comcast has the government-granted monopoly, they are blocked by the city from offering service to our block. That means no Monday Night Football, limited college football, no HBO, etc.. That was merely a pain, but now that the cable companies are blocking us from part of the democratic process, it's getting intolerable.
I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
The problem with the primary system is that it matters so much. It wouldn't if there were more than 2 parties (and thus 2 candidates) that counted.
To fix this we need to fix the US election system. Here's why that matters.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
he sad thing is that many liberal will read this and it will play straight into their bias on how they think conservatives really think.
Heh. Is that reaaally the fault of the biased liberal?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
And I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about what a waste of oxygen timothy is.
the candidate debates arent meant as a meaningful or informative approach to education of the viewer as to the appropriate policical candidate to select for office. Debates drive ad revenue and clickthrough rate for major media corporations, which in turn fuel contributions to candidates the networks deem fit-for-purpose to operate the nation. As for allegations of corporate bias, this is intended. you may be voting for a candidate, but through a convoluted system of redistricting, superdelegates, electoral colleges, shadow donors, overt print television and radio bias, and voter ID and registration regulation as a form of vote-suppression the real candidates you are in fact to choose from are quietly selected for you.
This isnt to say major corporations want you to vote for their candidate, far from the case. the plutocratic class wants you to want to vote for their candidate. Without you overtly insisting your support, the entire concept of voting is revealed to be a sham. The most egregious theme of american elections however is this: even without a majority turnout of americans, and with that minority still largely uninformed and voting on personal opinion at best, the united states continues to elect a president and that president continues to be one for which overwhelming support by a corporate citizenry is undeniably afforded.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The FCC is just as politically tainted as the Department of Justice, EPA, IRS, BLM, DHS, HHS, HUD, SSA, VA and the rest of Obama's diseased agencies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Their man Obama benefited from the same corrupt media treatment in the last 2 elections. He still does.
If you can't afford cable you shouldn't be voting. Jokes aside, it's nice to see all the anti establishment fervor plus some of the old alliances ( the rich and evangelicals for one) breaking down. Maybe we'll see some real change.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have internet access but no TV. I tried watching the debates live on YouTube, and have only sometimes been successful. I wonder why CNN or FNC or the other channels don't either stream LIVE (for NON-cable subscribers) or allow live streaming feeds on YouTube.
Content wise, they're being paid for it either way - whether I watch it on TV or on Internet, the channel is still getting paid. Even the carriers - Charter in my case - are being paid regardless of whether I watch it over TV or over the internet. I just don't see the arguments from the Carrier POV of forcing people to get a cable connection to view content that can also be available online.
Why are you feeding the troll?
As a good rule of thumb, ignore Anonymous Cowards.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
At this stage of the game, the internal dealings of a political party isn't any different than the internal dealings of the local bowling club. People are free to assemble and do what they want on their own terms. If that happens to include choosing CNN to host their debate, so what? That's no different than a club renting out a church basement or local legion hall for their monthly meeting. A political party is a private association of people who are, among themselves, deciding who they might want to put forward as a candidate in a general election.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Is it my fault if I believe the rest of the world is populated by savages because I've only ever watched the national geographic channel? Yes, yes it is. As it is for me paying too much attention to a TV channel, it means they pay too much attention to CNN and never bother to go out and actually meet and converse with a real life conservative.
I'd really like to see debates run not by the 6 largest media companies.. They have a vested interest in keeping money *in* politics (because they get a lot of it!)
I don't like any of the 5 remaining viable candidates, yet I feel compelled by my civic duty to vote.
Where is "none of the above/uncommitted" when you need it?
Yes, I do know that bothering to show up at the poll but abstaining from the Presidential race is a legitimate way of protesting, but it's not nearly as satisfying as "none of the above."
Also, there are down-ballot races on one of the major party's primaries where I do feel good about supporting at least one candidate over his/her competitors.
Is it my fault if I believe the rest of the world is populated by bare-breasted women because I've only ever watched the national geographic channel?
FTFY
Is it my fault if I believe the rest of the world is populated by savages because I've only ever watched the national geographic channel?
I would just like to point out the hilarity of you bringing this up without asserting that NatGeo misrepresented the 'savages'. Thank you for supporting my point. ;)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
See https://ballotpedia.org/Top-tw... .
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Having read the article (don't be afraid to read, the article's quite short), the analysis shows that the complaints are coming from left, and right, and center. It even includes a bit of "conspiracy theory" about someone whose cable went out during two debates and suspects foul play. For all the ills of corporate-run media, the alternative is government-run media which itself has negative connotations derived from examples in history. Even the putatively benevolent PBS is considered biased by large swaths of the population. For the issue of who hosts debates, I see no solution that is better than the current landscape. There are certainly different approaches, but not better.
Regarding requiring paid cable. I believe this is a more valid complaint. That said, an argument can be made that even free broadcast requires one to support manufacturers by purchasing their radios and TVs. So then we ban the airwaves altogether and force candidates to speak loudly in an open-air theater. (We can't have sound support, that's to submit to the sound-system manufacturer's cartel!).
Before I wander off mumbling to myself, I will say that all this fist-shaking and hand-wringing over corporate influence, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, money in politics, etc. seems a waste of energy better spent elsewhere. No amount of money or corporate influence helped Jeb Bush, and Hillary's many years of grooming the electorate hasn't made her journey to the general election the cake walk everyone expected. The unprecedented nature of this election cycle is a wonderful counterexample to so many arguments that have been made across the political spectrum.
If you still believe individuals elect Presidents of the US you've been smokin' too much Colorado weed. For one nobody but Trump is bankrolling almost all of his campaign so far. Not Hillary Clinton or Sanders, or Cruz, or anyone else. Among those who basically are in the wealthy hands of big donors. That my friends goes to the Clinton's. Not only that but the Super Pac's end up forking a lot of the bill for the smear ads in media and the "town hall" campaigning is simply a means to make the little guy feel important.The real money was had long ago in private super expensive dinners people like Hillary have months, years before the campaign kicks off. What popular Donald Trump has yet to realize that he may have the people's vote, but because he fails at being in the pockets of special interests he won't have a chance. Trump and Sanders threaten the boys club and carefully mated marriage between government and big business. Clinton, Cruz, Rubio, they are all in on it.
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
It can't be a real debate. A real debate requires that each of them be trying to persuade a fairly neutral party who has the power to shut them down and the intelligence to recognize when they are bullshitting. That way they have to actually know facts and understand how to use them to present their position. Pretty much the only time it ever happens is in the appellate courts.
What is sadder is that you wasted your time responding to an obvious troll, that put very little effort into his or her post. Don't feed the trolls and they will crawl back under bridge from which they spawned.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I don't know whether its legal, but I find all the debates I hear about in the news on youtube. In fact, I even can't subscribe to a cable plan, as I don't live in the USA.
Hey, it's April Fools Day +/- 1, that is, + a month and minus a day, so here's some troll-food for laughs, bold is where I fixed it for you
Here's a list of inconvenient facts[citation needed] that liberals and Slashdotters love to deny:
There is no evidence that humans evolved from any animal, ape or otherwise. The evidence of humans evolving from other Homo species and other primates is similar in strength to other this-animal-evolved-from-that-one evidence, where the animals are similarly related and both diverged as far back as modern man diverged from other Homo species and from other primates. The fact that you only call out humans and not all animal evolution is very telling of your likely bias. God created humans as they are today. I assume you mean as they were 4+ thousand years ago, because if he created me as I am today, why do I have memories of being a child? Oh, I get it, God created me as I am today, with those memories of events that never happened already existing. Thanks for the edumacation [NOT].
Geologic evidence shows the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. While there may be some evidence to support this claim, the evidence to support a claim of a 4+ billion-year-old earth, or at least a many-millions-of-years-old earth, is much more consistent and compelling This lines up perfectly with the Bible. I will grant you that the best scholarship puts the age of the Bible at less than 10,000 years old
Humans lived on the Earth alongside the dinosaurs. Their fossilized remains are frequently found at the same level in the ground. Strata alone does not prove co-existence. It is evidence that cannot be merely brushed aside, and scientists have an obligation to try to offer theories as to why two things would be in the same strata that are just as testable as the theory that they co-existed.
The Earth is nearly flat. Much of the supposed evidence for a round Earth is actually the result of optical illusions caused by the atmosphere.Given the pictures we have from space, I don't even know how to respond, other than to say "Bless your heart".
The sun and the oceans regulate global temperature. Human activity has a negligible effect on the Earth's temperature. You are technically correct, in the sense that +/- several degrees C allegedly caused by human behavior is noise given that without the sun, we would be several hundred degrees C colder and without the ocean, the temperature profile of the planet would be vastly different. However, that difference of a few degrees C has non-negligible effects on both human and non-human life.
Historical cycles in Earth's temperature shows that the Earth is far more likely to experience another ice age in the next century than global warming.[citation needed]
You can thank me later for telling it like it is. I would, if you were. I did, and you can.
----
For the record: I am a Bible-believing Christian who knows Jesus died for my sins (and yours too - but if you don't believe me I'm not going to bother you about it unless you want me to) and goes to church several times a week (not that going to church makes you a Christian any more than being in a car makes you a driver). I also accept that either the universe is about 13B years old and the planet is about 4.5B years old -OR- that God, in his infinite wisdom, made it look that way for a good reason. Setting up the world to look that way so Christians could argue with each other doesn't seem like the kind of "goodness" that the God I worship values. So, the world may very well be 4 thous
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Your coat's on fire.
Have gnu, will travel.
Take that statement, correct the grammar, then swap out the liberal and conservative parts leaving the rest intact and it still works!
If there is one thing that seems pretty clear it's that Sanders and Trump are both hated by the elite of their party and the sleeping giant of "None of the above" voters are starting to notice and believe they might be viable ways to strike back at them. Both those who normally vote lesser of two evils within the parties and those who don't think it matters because they all do the same crap with different spin.
Are these guys really any different? I doubt it but their success just on the perception they are combined with the appearance voting for them could rock the boat is enough to send a serious message.
I can see it now
Slashdot Moderator: If you were to implement universal health care, what programming language would you use to create the government portal?
Reddit Moderator: Which Meme best describes your position cat videos?
If the clown show debates for this year's election prove anything it's that this two part system just doesn't work. Vote third party, vote independent, vote for a write-in, vote for someone who really is a good choice, but for the love of God whatever you do don't vote for "the lesser of two evils" and don't vote for a name or the letter in parentheses beside it. Become informed and make a smart choice. Vote because the candidate deserves it, not because they are part of a particular party. Stop thinking that if you can only choose from two people and anyone else is "throwing away your vote", because the reality is that we are stuck that way because everyone thinks that way, but that can change once we start to think differently. Please think. Our future and the future of our children depend on it.
If there is one thing that seems pretty clear it's that Sanders and Trump are both hated by the elite of their party and the sleeping giant of "None of the above" voters are starting to notice and believe they might be viable ways to strike back at them.
Only half true. The sleeping giant of "white people without a college degree" (and a bunch who do) are indeed waking up and voting for Trump in the primaries. It looks very much like Trump will win the GOP nomination.
However, on the Democratic side, it appears this isn't the case. While the Bernie supporters are putting up a good fight, it just isn't enough: outside of states that already aspire to be like Denmark and don't have any black people, the Democratic voters are voting for Hillary in droves, and apparently minorities are really leading the way here. It's great that roughly 1/3 of them are voting for Bernie, but that doesn't help when the other 2/3 are voting for Mrs. Goldman-Sachs. For some strange reason, the minorities (particularly blacks) are turning their backs on the guy who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (in the "March on Washington" where King delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech) and instead voting for the woman who called young African-American men "super-predators" and helped push legislation that has destroyed black families. It's mind-boggling.
As best as I can tell, what we're seeing here is the dumb older generations of Democratic voters screwing over the younger generations because they're gullible enough to believe Hillary's lies and desperately want to see a female--any female--in the White House before they're dead, even if she's a blatantly corrupt, ultra-wealthy war hawk who'll sign disastrous trade deals like the TPP and further push policies to spy on Americans with the NSA, and most likely start yet another war in the middle east, destabilizing the area even more, increasing the power of ISIS/Boko Haram, and resulting in the deaths of millions.
Based on all this, Trump actually looks like the rational choice in November. At least he called Bush's Iraq war "stupid", unlike Hillary who voted for it.
The sad thing is that many liberal will read this and it will play straight into their bias on how they think conservatives really think.
The real sad thing about this is that there is a, unfortunately not small, portion of the population that actually believes this. Well, maybe not the flat earth part, but the rest is gospel truth and gospel truth wins out over actual truth to them.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
The real problem that the Democrat and Republican parties are facing is that they each have an outsider candidate, who is not part of their party but just "running as" a member, who is either blowing everyone else out (Trump) or putting up a much more substantial fight than expected (Sanders). If the election actually came down to Sanders versus Trump there would be a lot of democrats and republicans looking around feeling like they don't have a candidate in the election, and rightly so. That's the conclusion to the Democrat policy of "more Obama" and the Republican policy of "stop Obama". It's not all about Obama, and plenty of people want to move in a completely different direction than where either party wants to go. You can still see it with the Republican-majority Congress vowing to just stonewall any attempt by the president to do his job and nominate a new SC justice. Congress is there to do a job that they are just outright refusing to do because the other guy is Obama, and it seems stupid to a lot of people. Or the dozens of times that republicans have tried to repeal or cripple Obamacare, knowing full well that Obama will veto any attempt. They know that they are wasting their time, and they do it anyway instead of actually getting anything done. The people watching that happen are the kinds of people who are voting for Trump or Sanders.
At this point it's not unthinkable that Trump fails to secure the majority he needs to be the nominee, it goes to the brokered convention, the convention votes to nominate a different person, Trump breaks off as an independent and takes 40% or whatever of Republican voters with him, the Democrats anoint Hillary, Sanders says F this and signs on as an independent, and then Bloomberg jumps in for good measure to stir the pot a little more. A general election with 5 major candidates, in addition to people like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, might be what we need at this point. The two-party bickering has reached a level that is no longer sustainable, and that's why Sanders and Trump are where they are.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
There is, it's called Facebook...
So do it. Nothing is stopping you from trying. You'll need enough money to produce it, and enough media presence to guarantee an audience sufficient to get the candidates to spend their time. Note that those last two requirements, if met, will mean that you, too, will have a vested interest in keeping money in politics because you, too, will be getting your cut of the pie.
You are confusing the primaries with the actual election. In most states people who are not registered as democrats aren't allowed to vote in their primaries. Polling among the general population of registered voters shows Bernie as being the most favored candidate across the board by a wide margin at 60% and solidly beating all Republican candidates on a head to head election basis by a solid margin. Hillary only beats Trump and only by 3% and loses to all other candidates.
The primaries are far from over. Obama was losing after super tuesday as well. It would help if he announced Warren as his running mate. Sanders is a very old man, his VP has a good chance of becoming President, especially if he went a second term.
"The real problem that the Democrat and Republican parties are facing is that they each have an outsider candidate, who is not part of their party but just "running as" a member, who is either blowing everyone else out (Trump) or putting up a much more substantial fight than expected (Sanders). If the election actually came down to Sanders versus Trump there would be a lot of democrats and republicans looking around feeling like they don't have a candidate in the election, and rightly so."
You say that like it's a bad thing and isn't the very reason Trump and Sanders have so much support. Obama won just saying the word "change" people actually want change, for real, the population wants the establishment out. Coming up very soon 80% of congress seats will be up for re-election and the chance to oust these guys is upon us.
If Bloomberg jumps in the polls show it hurts Hillary but not Sanders. If either Trump OR Sanders drop for whatever reason while the other is still in, a good portion of their support might jump ship to the other. And things could change drastically after the primaries because in most states voters are locked into whatever they said when they registered and independent means no dice. Polls show less than half the general (registered voter) population like Hillary OR Trump while Sanders is the most favored by a large margin at 60% and solidly beats all other candidates head-to-head in a general election by solid margins. Hillary beats only Trump and only by 3% while trailing any of the other potential Republicans by a few percent.
I'm not confusing the primaries with the actual election. That's great that some polls show Bernie as being favorable to a wide swath of American voters, but the problem is that our shitty Presidential election system isn't designed to capture the desires of mainstream voters, it's rigged to perpetuate a corrupt, two-party system and keep people like Bernie out. Bernie has to win the Democratic primaries in order to go to the general election, so people registered as Democrats need to vote for him to make that happen. If they don't, then he's out, or he has to run as an independent which is unlikely (I'm pretty sure he said he wouldn't do that). If there's one thing I don't like about Bernie, it's that he's much too soft on Hillary (as Ralph Nader noted in his blog). Maybe he'll change his mind; it'd be interesting to see a 3-way race between Hillary, Trump, and Bernie.
Bernie is old, but he's not that much older than Hillary or Trump. Bernie is 74, Trump is 69, and Hillary is 68. There's a 6-year difference between Bernie and Hillary. The age thing is a canard that anti-Bernie people are using to attack him. Maybe if you're a Cruz or Rubio supporter it's a somewhat valid charge, but if you're a Hillary shill, then no, it's not valid at all. Hillary has had a bunch of health problems and is likely to keel over sooner than Bernie.
However, I do thank you for pointing out that Obama was also losing after Super Tuesday, that's a very good point.
Um, I'm not a lawyer like you, but I thought the problem with a wide-open 4-person (or more) race like what you're describing is that no one would win enough electoral votes, and then the House of Representatives would choose the President.
Otherwise, I think your analysis is spot-on.
Right, but the Democrats don't want to nominate Bernie because then there wouldn't be a Democrat in the election, similar to the Republican side.
I like that people want actual change, I've been pushing for it for the last 5 years or so. In this election I would vote for Sanders or Johnson (or maybe Stein), but none of the others appeal to me. I'd like to see both Bernie and Trump run even if they don't get the party nomination, because I want to see a change in the election and debate system. People deserve to have more than 2 choices, we need to get away from the system where people vote against someone because there isn't a viable candidate that they feel actually represents their beliefs. A big part of moving away from that system involves major televised presidential debates featuring people with something other than a D or R after their names, the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to get shut out of the system in favor of actual choice. I'd love to see Sanders, Trump, Bloomberg, Johnson, Stein, Clinton, and whatever Republican all on the same stage having an actual debate about substance, it would be the best election season in memory and it would force the CoPD to either change its ways or be passed by.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I don't think that's a reason to remove choice from the popular vote. It might be a reason to get rid of the electoral college, but it's not a reason to restrict choice. If I were the dictator then the general election would have Sanders, Trump, Clinton, Bloomberg, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and whoever the Republicans decide to send. If the House wants to make someone president who got 5% of the popular vote instead of someone who got 30%, then I'd like to see what happens after that. I think several of those representatives would have to head back home and try to justify why they did what they did.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Nothing will stop you from doing it. Here are two huge things that will stop you from doing it...
If the difference between the words "doing" (your word), and "trying" (my word) confuse you, I suggest a dictionary.
I'm not arguing in favor of the current (broken) system, I just stated what I understood to be the (crappy) electoral process as stated in the Constitution. Am I incorrect?
I'm all for eliminating the Electoral College. In fact, I'm all for eliminating the Constitution itself and replacing it with a better one. This one is completely broken. I think we should switch to a Parliament, like every other developed nation has, and at the same time implementing some type of better voting system for ALL elections.
Thank you, AC. This ignorance is what leads to the year from hell. It gets better, trust me. I am a time traveler from the year 2042. My mission is to study the effects that John Titor's radical acts had on divergence measurements and the Stein's threshold.
I became deeply concerned when my divergence measurements jumped a full 0.5% from 2016-02-29 18:00 to 2016-03-02 6:00. This is unprecedented. I do not think it bodes well. Granted that's an almost 2% chance that Clinton will not be the next president, and my prior recollections may not be entirely predictive concerning this worldline.
I found this YouTube video that accurately portrays what will happen when the year from hell starts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . At least 2 billion lives were lost to starvation during that year. There was nothing we could do. Our best engineers and biologists worked around the clock to save the rest of us. We value human knowledge in the year 2042, for it was the only thing to save us from extinction.
My own mission is to observe new perturbations in order to test our Stein's threshold theory. Personally, I do not think the Stein's threshold can be crossed, not with technology that exists in 2042. Give or take 50 years, the year from hell will happen.
Stay away from major cities beginning around 2019. There will be no elections in 2020, that is certain whether Clinton or Trump are the next president.
The walk to the gas station will be for your own good.
UNLESS
Perhaps combine entertainment with serious opportunity for candidates to show us what they're actually made of, if questions were well designed. (With goofiness to lighten it up, maybe a musical guest. Im thinking Sabado Gigante guy as MC. ) Hell, just cast 'em on all the game shows, for that matter and let 'em at it. Who would'nt love that? The categories you could come up with. . . It could help reduce the rancor and show us how they think . . on their toes. . or who has a working brain cell. . . . or a heartbeat.
74 vs 68 may not seem like a huge gap but gender comes into play here. Men simply do not live as long.
It looks like the 12th amendment spells that out. It says that if no one gets a majority of the electoral college votes, then the House will choose the president. Each state gets a single vote (not each representative), and only the 3 highest vote getters from the general election are eligible. This part:
a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Sounds to me like 2/3 of the states need to be present in order for a vote to occur, and that someone needs a majority to be elected. If the House fails to elect a new president then the previous vice president takes over as if the president had died.
So, maybe Biden will get to be president after all. I admit, if that happens it would be funny as hell and would probably be the end of the electoral college.
We're in an age when each person's vote is equal to any other person, so the electoral college serves no purpose now. The popular vote should elect the president, then we would see the end of all of that obnoxious "swing state" campaigning and news reporting (Wolf Blitzer is going to need to find something else to talk about over and over). Look at this map, it shows where Bush and Kerry (and their VPs) either visited (the waving hand) or spent $1 million in advertising in the 5 weeks leading up to the 2004 election. That shit is ridiculous. Look at this graph, it shows the number of people in each state per electoral vote. In Wyoming you only need less than 200,000 people for a single electoral vote, but in Texas you need almost 750,000 for a vote. So the people in Wyoming, Washington D.C., Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and Rhode Island have all of their votes mean more than the people in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. That's also pretty stupid, my vote should count the same as any other vote regardless of which state they live in. And, for that matter, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc should all have their votes counted also if they're going to be under our jurisdiction.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Mandatory Coverage on 3 Major Broadcast networks is required. Both on radio and on TV. Anyone in a rural location should be able to tune in with their AM radio and hear the debates.
Coverage of politics is in "the public good" and needs to be mandatory for FCC licensing.
We cannot mandate CATV - though coverage would be provided by mandating 1 of the 3 major TV networks provide coverage.
We cannot mandate Internet - though internet streaming services should cover it as well.
No copyright of the debates allowed. Freely re-broadcast forever.
How do we fix the debates? Automatically control the microphones of the candidates. That would control the time limits - no going over time, period. If the candidate goes off topic, shut-off his mic and he/she/it loses the rest of their time for that answer. Talking over someone else and they lose their next time. Do it twice and escort them from the building.
Civility is important in our political world. You don't have to like the other person, but you do need to treat them with respect. Being rude is NOT allowed.
Every candidate with 5% of the polled voters gets invited to the debates. No hand-picking of who can and who cannot be there. Which polling companies are used much change for each debate.
Don't get me started on campaign finance reform. My simple rule is this - if you cannot vote in the election for the candidate, then you cannot give money or services which help or harm that candidate. We want the government to represent voters, right? The only way to make that happen is to only have voters fund a campaign - PERIOD.