Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
Putting someone in a debate increases their viability. It also improves the discourse and more fully educates the american public as to the issues being discussed and potentially different viewpoints on those issues. For all of those reasons, it's important to let candidates in the debates after a SANE requirement is met. As others have noted, a potentially good marker is, is the candidate on enough ballots to theoretically win the election? If so, they have enough support to be heard. Easy.
Alright, come up with a SANE requirement. The one the others have noted is idiotic. If someone is on the ballot in eleven key states, they can win the election, assuming they carry all eleven. Is it SANE to allow someone on the ballot in those states to be in the debate, and not someone on the ballot in the other 39 states? Note that in case of an election going to the Congress, noone will win who has no Congressional representation. And three viable candidates really ups the chances for Congressional resolution of the election.
And don't forget to plan around the fact that the two major parties can (and likely will) jigger with local election laws if needed to keep people from qualifying.
And the personality characteristics that make for good debators are what, quick thinking? Knowing your stances and being able to eloquently discuss them? Those aren't important qualities for the leader of the free world to have?
Not especially. Quick thinking is useful to me personally. I don't want a quick thinker to have his hand on the Big Red Button. I'd prefer someone who never acts in haste in that case. KNowing your stances is irrelevant to debate, really. A good debater can argue persuasively for any point of view at all. Eloquence is a plus for a President, when it comes to convincing people and Congress to go along with them. Since I prefer King Log to King Stork, this is not that desirable to me.
You could care less about the debate... well without it, the only exposure most people have to the candidates (not you, perhaps, but most) are all those lovely ads. It's time to get back to a little substance, and make the candidates answer questions. even FOLLOW UP questions! Horrors!!
Yah, sure. WHo gets to bias this debate? Who picks the questions, who picks the follow-ups? You? Me? Some randomly chosen stranger? Can't do that without bias, frankly.
Frankly, debates would only be useful if there were some way to hold the Candidates to their statements. And there isn't. If I were in the debate, I could promise the moon, the stars, and a big lollipop to everyone, then do whatever I liked afterwards. Just as every other President can and does. And then plead "the circumstances have changed since then" when I am called on it. Note that people have no problem with their favorite doing that, but are offended when the other guy gets elected, and does it.
Yes, it's long past time to add substance to the campaigns. How do you propose to do it in such a way that YOUR candidate isn't favoured? Or that MINE isn't favoured, for that matter. I do not think the debates are a matter of substance. They have a veneer of substance on top of a think helping of style and posturing.
By the way, the last really substantial debates in American politics were the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Read transcripts of them if you want to see substance. And the loser got elected President....(note that those debates weren't Presidential debates, but debates for a Senate seat - which Lincoln lost. But he had the last laugh when he became President two years later.)
Never said YOU were a Dem. But I've heard this bit of spin other places recently. And, yes, it is spin. Someone is floating a trial baloon to see if an idea has any viability as a campaign issue. Won't work too well, because Clinton is the obvious counter-argument (he did no better, and arguably quite a bit worse, when he had a "friendly" Congress).
The only "spin" I see here right now is an ineffective President with a loyal House and Senate ready to do his bidding if he can create legislation that will fall to a vote along party lines saying that he'll do the same things he said he would in 2000.
Hmm, the same could be said of Clinton, who had Dem House and Senate for his first two years. It might surprise people who don't pay much attention to American politics just how often the Congress ignores the President, even when they are controlled by the same party. Might surprise them even more how often the Congress does what the President wants, even when they are in opposite parties.
And that accomplishment is marred severely by the fact that his tax cut to my taxation group and peers was given as TAXABLE INCOME. That alone makes the great-and-almighty Bush's tax cut immediately 40% less effective to me personally. And the tax cut favored those with children heavily. My wife and I are dual-income no-kids (DINKs) who are working hard and haven't had a break or vacation in four years, and who are contributing heavily to the welfare of our economy, and we were effectively penalized in Bush's plan.
So, you'd have preferred a tax cut based on something other than taxable income? Which would not be a Tax Cut, but a Donation (that's what the Romans called it when the Emperor or Senate used public money to bribe the people).
It didn't favour those with children all that heavily. Yes, it reduced the taxes for people with children more than it reduced the taxes of anyone else. In the form of tax credits for kids. Which was one of the parts put in there to quiet the cries of "tax cut for rich! Evil!!!".
Personally, I would have preferred a simple lowering of all tax brackets. Which is what Bush's plan started as. But that was a "tax cut for the rich! Evil!!!".
"Effectively penalized"? You paid less taxes, but that is an effective penalty? What will you call the tax increase that Kerry favours? You know, where he repeals the Bush cuts, so you pay MORE than you do now?
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
Seems to me that everyone wants "potentially viable" candidates in the debates, but that defining "potentially viable" is a tough one. It can be argued, for instance, that giving someone a place in the debate increases their viability.
I, on the other hand, could care less about the debate. A TV debate is essentially biased (note the first TV debate - Kennedy vs. Nixon. TV viewers thought Kennedy won, radio listeners to the same debate thought Nixon won) in favour of someone who does well on camera, which is not a significant requirement for a President, imho. Actually, any debate is biased, if only toward the personality characteristics that make for good debaters. Which are not necessarily useful to a President either.
"Very rarely" but it almost happened in recent memory. "Very rarely" is not "won't".
Of course, "almost happened" is not the same as "happened" either.
That was never required. The "winner take all" system evolved out of a few contested elections early on (John Quincy Adams & Thomas Jefferson come to mind). "Winner takes all" makes it much more difficult to have the election decided by Congress, which occurs whenever noone carries a majority of the Electoral College.
strong legislation about fairness during press coverage
Alas, the First Amendment trumps that. "no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
Actually, given that Senators were theoretically the representatives not of the people, but of the States, going back to the old system of allowing the several States to choose their Senators any way they like would work with me. It would reintroduce the balance of power between the people, the states, and the federal government that was built in originally.
Sounds like a Poll Tax in another guise. Already been ruled unconstitutional.
Ben Franklin on Poll taxes: "If I own an ass, I have the vote. If the Ass dies, I lose the vote. Therefore, the vote lies not with me, but with the ass."
He's had the luxury of a Republican House and Senate and yet has done NONE of what he promised and is repeating those promises. That's enough for me to say...
This is interesting. Up till recently, the Dem spin was that the Republicans had REALLY STRONG control over their membership, who never voted their convictions, but did as they were told.
Now, the Dem spin is that the Republicans won't do what Bush wants. So Bush must be ineffective.
Note, by the way, that Bush DID pass his tax cuts. Just as Clinton DID pass his tax increases. You remember that one, right? Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut right up to election day, then four weeks later decided there was no way to do it, so he proposed a middle-class tax hike instead.
But what other powers/responsibilities do the electors have?
None at all. They cast their vote for President (used to be, they cast separate votes for VP, now that's pro forma, at best), and they're done.
Given that this guy has said he won't do his job as a Republican Elector, they should go ahead and replace him before the election. Not like there is anything requiring that he be an elector built into state law.
Personally, he sounds like someone screaming for attention. Prolly wants to run for State Office real soon, and wants to build name recognition.
Re:Just allow the viable candidates
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
If a debate stays focused on a few key issues and enforces strict time limits, they should be able to whip through 5-6 big issues in a 2-hour debate.
Let's see, you mentioned five candidates eligible. 120 minutes divided five ways is 24 minutes. Five issues cuts it to ~5 minutes per candidate per issue. Not counting time for the questions to be asked. Call it four minutes per candidate per issue, if you allow no time for follow-up questions.
Why bother? It's not enough time for the debate to be worthwhile, in that scenario.
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
Let's point out a few more facts. You don't need 50% to win. You need 50% of the populace who bothers to vote, which is about 40-60% of the populace. So let's be charitable and say you need about 30% to win; IN A TWO PARTY ELECTION.
15% is a very sizable base to start from.
That 15% isn't 15% of everyone. It's 15% of that likely-voters pool that the polls use. So you're at 15% of 40-60%, and still need, say, an increase from 15% to 35% to have a reasonable chance of winning a three-way race. Not easy to do, when ~90% of the electorate has already decided their votes before the debates.
Note further that a three-way race will go to a third party candidate VERY rarely. Unless that third party candidate has fairly uniform support across the country, even a 35-35-30 split (with the third party getting 35) would most likely result in the election being decided in Congress, since noone would have a MAJORITY (not plurality) of the Electoral College. And how much you willing to bet a 49% Democrat-51% Republican Joint Congress (or swing it the other way, 49R-51D) would vote Nader into the Presidency? Or any other third party?
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I meant six days, twenty-four hours a day. Which would give each of 15 candidates a reasonable amount of time.
Six days of evenings would only amount to an hour per candidate.
Never said he claimed to be a saint. Claimed people of that generation generally treat him like one. Probably because he was killed.
And just how did he "motivate people to make their own lives better"?
The Cuban Missile Crisis? Which I remember because my father was on alert for that whole period.
The decision to go to the Moon? Good decision, but it was going nowhere in Congress till he was killed.
Saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for your country"? Not sure how motivational that is, but my answer is "Ok, and nothing."
Was this the last period when AMericans trusted their government? Doubt it seriously. There was a moderately widespread belief that Johnson jiggered election results in Texas to give St Jack the win. And picking your baby brother for Attorney General looks a lot like nepotism from where I sit. Or were there truly no lawyers in the US more qualified that Robert Kennedy? Somehow, I doubt it.
My own opinion is that the last time we trusted our government was WW2. And a strong case could be made for 1860 as an alternate date - just before "these United States" became "the United States".
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
WOuld you watch a six-day debate? How about a six-hour debate? If you won't watch it, why do you feel others would?
If noone watches it, then you'll find out about it be reading a summary, which will onclude the good sound-bites, and nothing else, and/or will be filtered through the biases of whomever made the summary.
In other words, it would serve no purpose, other than possibly to let us see which candidate could hold his water longest, assuming no bathroom breaks.
And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
C'mon, if you want to have a debate, invite whomever you like to it - Bush, Kerry, Nader, Gore, me, your grandmother.
Don't expect people to come just because you invite them, or to stay away just because you don't (as witnessed last time through).
Yes, the debates are organized and run by the Republicrats. Or the Democans, I forget which.
Ostensibly, the reason they refuse to allow minor candidates (defined as doing really poorly in the polls, less than 5%, I think) is because having fifteen candidates in a two hour debate lets you give each candidate ~6 minutes to talk (after subtracting time for commercials). Which means that you'll get a few sound-bites suitable for the evening news, and nothing else worthwhile.
Realistically, Presidential debates would need to be days long, if you allowed all the candidates.
And frankly, if this new bunch just wants to lower the bar far enough so that THEIR favorite gets in, why should they have any legitimacy at all? And why should they expect anyone serious to pay attention to them?
Excpet they wouldn't. The populations aren't nearly high enough, your FUD not withstanding.
It's a slight exageration, at worst. It is safe to assume that any Democrat or Republican will get 45% of the vote, even if he doesn't campaign at all.
A Presidential candidate, in a direct election, would need to sway no more than 6% of the vote to win. Since New York, Los Angeles and Chicago represent more than 10% of the American population (and are all highly polarized - they are overwhelmingly Democratic right now), a Republican candidate could, with just the right message, campaign in those three cities and ONLY, and carry a direct election.
It is easier to campaign effectively if you can restrict your campigning to the smallest possible pool of voters (hard to get caught in contradictions if you only talk to three audiences). So a direct election would be characterized by Candidates each campaigning in small, select parts of the country, where a decent swing can be decisive. Which means a few big cities for the Republicans, a somewhat larger number for the Deomcrats (who already have strong support in big cites, thus less swing vote to gain there).
Damnit! something got interpreted as an html code when I was silly enough to post without checking;(
Please insert "less than 30 days before a general election, unless you meet some really stupid conditions)." after the word "media and before the word "Now".
Seems to me that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform law would make this action illegal (mentioning a candidate by name in the media Now, it is just barely possible that Moore has NEVER spoken to ANYONE in the DNC or Kerry Campaign. Which just might be enough wiggle room to get away with it.
However, odds that everyone involved in getting it shown on election eve can say the same truthfully are low. Which, again, makes it a violation of BCFR (aka McCain-Feingold).
Re:past behavior is a predictor of future behavior
on
TXANG Debate Re-Igniting?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries.
I really, really, really do NOT want a President who is going to "improve the quality of life" for every US Citizen.
Actually, I can't think of much of any one thing that could be done that would accomplish that.
Lowering taxes? No, the Big Government types wouldn't like that.
Raising taxes? No, the Small Government people wouldn't like that.
Universal Healthcare? Free Market types would be upset. As well as doctors, nurses, and whoever had to pay for it.
Free Beer for everyone? The Teetotallers would be left out?
A chicken in every pot, and a car in every driveway? That would offend the vegans and the Greens.
And on, and on, and on.
(In discussions with many folks many years older than myself, it has been strongly suggested that the last such candidate was John F. Kennedy. I'm not convinced, but I concede the possibility: he certainly kept his religion out of his politics better than any US president since.)
Many folks older than you are still fondly reminiscing about Saint John the Kennedy. Note that he didn't offer to do something to improve the quality of life for every US citizen, but rather to allow every US citizen do something to improve the quality of life of the government. And Vietnam. Remember that? Kennedy sent the first troops in, as I recall.
Realistically, all Presidents want to improve the quality of life of every American citizen. Problem is that their definition of "improved" and your definition (or mine) don't necessarily match up.
Clinton apparently thought that the Assault Weapon Ban would be a good thing for all Americans. I happen to disagree, having read the text of the law. You, on the other hand, might very well believe that ugly rifles are evil, and should be banned.
Bush apparently thinks that letting it lapse would be a good thing. I happen to agree with that, since I don't think there is anything intrinsically evil about an ugly rifle. Some of you, no doubt, will disagree with that move.
Same with everything else. Propose something to "improve the quality of life of every US citizen", and a large minority (or large majority, perhaps) will think you are an unmitigated ass for even considering making this heinous change to our way of life. And most of the rest won't think you are going far enough....
Bah! The Yankees are not all of Baseball. Though one must admit that they practice the art with a thoroughness and consistency not often seen in the world...;-)
The 2004 election will have a much, much higher turnout than 2000. In 2000, it didn't seem to matter a whole lot who got elected.
Care to bet on that? 51% turnout last election. Higher than for Clinton's last election. I wouldn't bet on the number being higher than 55%, as it was in Clinton's first election.
A lot of people are still genuinely angry about Florida's lack of concern for voting rights or even following their own laws.
Yah, it was terrible the way three or four counties counties in Florida did recounts in clear violation of state law. Note that there was a procedure under Florida State Law for contesting elections, which Gore didn't bother to invoke until nearly a month after the election. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court's first ruling on the subject came about before Gore ever bothered to invoke the law that would have actually made those recounts legal.
Actually, most elections are like that. Virtual deadheats. The best part about this site is that you can see how tiny swings in the polls sometimes will produce MAJOR swings in hypothetical Electoral Vote. And contrariwise, from time to time, large swings in the polls will produce negligible effects on the Electoral Vote.
Especially the parts where they show their ignorance:
The race is complicated by Louisiana's quaint view that politics should be kept out of politics, so the Senate election is nonpartisan. Rep. Chris John, Rep. David Vitter, state treasurer John Kennedy, and some minor candidates are all running without party affiliation in the Nov. 2 election. If no candidate gets 50%, there will be a runoff election a few weeks later. Insiders think it will be Chris John vs. David Vitter in a runoff. Runoffs are generally on a Saturday, giving more working class people a chance to vote. Once the race coalesces to one Democrat vs. one Republican, the Democrats have a good chance to hold the seat.
politics != partisan.
The "primary" in Louisiana is not a matter of running without party affiliation. It is a matter of not supporting the two-party system. All candidates run on their own merits, and the two highest scoring candidates go on to the runoff. Even if they are from the same party (which happens as often as not). Exception: if one candidate in the primary gets >50% of the vote, there is no runoff.
So, while this assumes that there will be a Democrat and a Republican in the runoff, that is by no means certain. I have voted in runoffs where the choices were two Republicans, two Democrats, one of either and one other unaffiliated, and occasionally one each Republican and Democrat.
My own opinion is that there will be one of each this time. Next time, who knows?
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, come up with a SANE requirement. The one the others have noted is idiotic. If someone is on the ballot in eleven key states, they can win the election, assuming they carry all eleven. Is it SANE to allow someone on the ballot in those states to be in the debate, and not someone on the ballot in the other 39 states? Note that in case of an election going to the Congress, noone will win who has no Congressional representation. And three viable candidates really ups the chances for Congressional resolution of the election.
And don't forget to plan around the fact that the two major parties can (and likely will) jigger with local election laws if needed to keep people from qualifying.
And the personality characteristics that make for good debators are what, quick thinking? Knowing your stances and being able to eloquently discuss them? Those aren't important qualities for the leader of the free world to have?
Not especially. Quick thinking is useful to me personally. I don't want a quick thinker to have his hand on the Big Red Button. I'd prefer someone who never acts in haste in that case. KNowing your stances is irrelevant to debate, really. A good debater can argue persuasively for any point of view at all. Eloquence is a plus for a President, when it comes to convincing people and Congress to go along with them. Since I prefer King Log to King Stork, this is not that desirable to me.
You could care less about the debate... well without it, the only exposure most people have to the candidates (not you, perhaps, but most) are all those lovely ads. It's time to get back to a little substance, and make the candidates answer questions. even FOLLOW UP questions! Horrors!!
Yah, sure. WHo gets to bias this debate? Who picks the questions, who picks the follow-ups? You? Me? Some randomly chosen stranger? Can't do that without bias, frankly.
Frankly, debates would only be useful if there were some way to hold the Candidates to their statements. And there isn't. If I were in the debate, I could promise the moon, the stars, and a big lollipop to everyone, then do whatever I liked afterwards. Just as every other President can and does. And then plead "the circumstances have changed since then" when I am called on it. Note that people have no problem with their favorite doing that, but are offended when the other guy gets elected, and does it.
Yes, it's long past time to add substance to the campaigns. How do you propose to do it in such a way that YOUR candidate isn't favoured? Or that MINE isn't favoured, for that matter. I do not think the debates are a matter of substance. They have a veneer of substance on top of a think helping of style and posturing.
By the way, the last really substantial debates in American politics were the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Read transcripts of them if you want to see substance. And the loser got elected President....(note that those debates weren't Presidential debates, but debates for a Senate seat - which Lincoln lost. But he had the last laugh when he became President two years later.)
The only "spin" I see here right now is an ineffective President with a loyal House and Senate ready to do his bidding if he can create legislation that will fall to a vote along party lines saying that he'll do the same things he said he would in 2000.
Hmm, the same could be said of Clinton, who had Dem House and Senate for his first two years. It might surprise people who don't pay much attention to American politics just how often the Congress ignores the President, even when they are controlled by the same party. Might surprise them even more how often the Congress does what the President wants, even when they are in opposite parties.
And that accomplishment is marred severely by the fact that his tax cut to my taxation group and peers was given as TAXABLE INCOME. That alone makes the great-and-almighty Bush's tax cut immediately 40% less effective to me personally. And the tax cut favored those with children heavily. My wife and I are dual-income no-kids (DINKs) who are working hard and haven't had a break or vacation in four years, and who are contributing heavily to the welfare of our economy, and we were effectively penalized in Bush's plan.
So, you'd have preferred a tax cut based on something other than taxable income? Which would not be a Tax Cut, but a Donation (that's what the Romans called it when the Emperor or Senate used public money to bribe the people).
It didn't favour those with children all that heavily. Yes, it reduced the taxes for people with children more than it reduced the taxes of anyone else. In the form of tax credits for kids. Which was one of the parts put in there to quiet the cries of "tax cut for rich! Evil!!!".
Personally, I would have preferred a simple lowering of all tax brackets. Which is what Bush's plan started as. But that was a "tax cut for the rich! Evil!!!".
"Effectively penalized"? You paid less taxes, but that is an effective penalty? What will you call the tax increase that Kerry favours? You know, where he repeals the Bush cuts, so you pay MORE than you do now?
I, on the other hand, could care less about the debate. A TV debate is essentially biased (note the first TV debate - Kennedy vs. Nixon. TV viewers thought Kennedy won, radio listeners to the same debate thought Nixon won) in favour of someone who does well on camera, which is not a significant requirement for a President, imho. Actually, any debate is biased, if only toward the personality characteristics that make for good debaters. Which are not necessarily useful to a President either.
"Very rarely" but it almost happened in recent memory. "Very rarely" is not "won't".
Of course, "almost happened" is not the same as "happened" either.
That was never required. The "winner take all" system evolved out of a few contested elections early on (John Quincy Adams & Thomas Jefferson come to mind). "Winner takes all" makes it much more difficult to have the election decided by Congress, which occurs whenever noone carries a majority of the Electoral College.
Alas, the First Amendment trumps that. "no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
Actually, given that Senators were theoretically the representatives not of the people, but of the States, going back to the old system of allowing the several States to choose their Senators any way they like would work with me. It would reintroduce the balance of power between the people, the states, and the federal government that was built in originally.
THIS is how you describe Moynihan??? One of the deepest thinkers in American politics this century....
Ben Franklin on Poll taxes: "If I own an ass, I have the vote. If the Ass dies, I lose the vote. Therefore, the vote lies not with me, but with the ass."
This is interesting. Up till recently, the Dem spin was that the Republicans had REALLY STRONG control over their membership, who never voted their convictions, but did as they were told.
Now, the Dem spin is that the Republicans won't do what Bush wants. So Bush must be ineffective.
Note, by the way, that Bush DID pass his tax cuts. Just as Clinton DID pass his tax increases. You remember that one, right? Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut right up to election day, then four weeks later decided there was no way to do it, so he proposed a middle-class tax hike instead.
None at all. They cast their vote for President (used to be, they cast separate votes for VP, now that's pro forma, at best), and they're done.
Given that this guy has said he won't do his job as a Republican Elector, they should go ahead and replace him before the election. Not like there is anything requiring that he be an elector built into state law.
Personally, he sounds like someone screaming for attention. Prolly wants to run for State Office real soon, and wants to build name recognition.
Let's see, you mentioned five candidates eligible. 120 minutes divided five ways is 24 minutes. Five issues cuts it to ~5 minutes per candidate per issue. Not counting time for the questions to be asked. Call it four minutes per candidate per issue, if you allow no time for follow-up questions.
Why bother? It's not enough time for the debate to be worthwhile, in that scenario.
15% is a very sizable base to start from.
That 15% isn't 15% of everyone. It's 15% of that likely-voters pool that the polls use. So you're at 15% of 40-60%, and still need, say, an increase from 15% to 35% to have a reasonable chance of winning a three-way race. Not easy to do, when ~90% of the electorate has already decided their votes before the debates.
Note further that a three-way race will go to a third party candidate VERY rarely. Unless that third party candidate has fairly uniform support across the country, even a 35-35-30 split (with the third party getting 35) would most likely result in the election being decided in Congress, since noone would have a MAJORITY (not plurality) of the Electoral College. And how much you willing to bet a 49% Democrat-51% Republican Joint Congress (or swing it the other way, 49R-51D) would vote Nader into the Presidency? Or any other third party?
Six days of evenings would only amount to an hour per candidate.
And just how did he "motivate people to make their own lives better"?
The Cuban Missile Crisis? Which I remember because my father was on alert for that whole period.
The decision to go to the Moon? Good decision, but it was going nowhere in Congress till he was killed.
Saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for your country"? Not sure how motivational that is, but my answer is "Ok, and nothing."
Was this the last period when AMericans trusted their government? Doubt it seriously. There was a moderately widespread belief that Johnson jiggered election results in Texas to give St Jack the win. And picking your baby brother for Attorney General looks a lot like nepotism from where I sit. Or were there truly no lawyers in the US more qualified that Robert Kennedy? Somehow, I doubt it.
My own opinion is that the last time we trusted our government was WW2. And a strong case could be made for 1860 as an alternate date - just before "these United States" became "the United States".
If noone watches it, then you'll find out about it be reading a summary, which will onclude the good sound-bites, and nothing else, and/or will be filtered through the biases of whomever made the summary.
In other words, it would serve no purpose, other than possibly to let us see which candidate could hold his water longest, assuming no bathroom breaks.
Don't expect people to come just because you invite them, or to stay away just because you don't (as witnessed last time through).
Yes, the debates are organized and run by the Republicrats. Or the Democans, I forget which.
Ostensibly, the reason they refuse to allow minor candidates (defined as doing really poorly in the polls, less than 5%, I think) is because having fifteen candidates in a two hour debate lets you give each candidate ~6 minutes to talk (after subtracting time for commercials). Which means that you'll get a few sound-bites suitable for the evening news, and nothing else worthwhile.
Realistically, Presidential debates would need to be days long, if you allowed all the candidates.
And frankly, if this new bunch just wants to lower the bar far enough so that THEIR favorite gets in, why should they have any legitimacy at all? And why should they expect anyone serious to pay attention to them?
It's a slight exageration, at worst. It is safe to assume that any Democrat or Republican will get 45% of the vote, even if he doesn't campaign at all.
A Presidential candidate, in a direct election, would need to sway no more than 6% of the vote to win. Since New York, Los Angeles and Chicago represent more than 10% of the American population (and are all highly polarized - they are overwhelmingly Democratic right now), a Republican candidate could, with just the right message, campaign in those three cities and ONLY, and carry a direct election.
It is easier to campaign effectively if you can restrict your campigning to the smallest possible pool of voters (hard to get caught in contradictions if you only talk to three audiences). So a direct election would be characterized by Candidates each campaigning in small, select parts of the country, where a decent swing can be decisive. Which means a few big cities for the Republicans, a somewhat larger number for the Deomcrats (who already have strong support in big cites, thus less swing vote to gain there).
Not to invoke Godwin, but so was Hitler. I don't want a zealot of any stripe in the White House.
Please insert "less than 30 days before a general election, unless you meet some really stupid conditions)." after the word "media and before the word "Now".
However, odds that everyone involved in getting it shown on election eve can say the same truthfully are low. Which, again, makes it a violation of BCFR (aka McCain-Feingold).
I really, really, really do NOT want a President who is going to "improve the quality of life" for every US Citizen.
Actually, I can't think of much of any one thing that could be done that would accomplish that.
Lowering taxes? No, the Big Government types wouldn't like that.
Raising taxes? No, the Small Government people wouldn't like that.
Universal Healthcare? Free Market types would be upset. As well as doctors, nurses, and whoever had to pay for it.
Free Beer for everyone? The Teetotallers would be left out?
A chicken in every pot, and a car in every driveway? That would offend the vegans and the Greens.
And on, and on, and on.
(In discussions with many folks many years older than myself, it has been strongly suggested that the last such candidate was John F. Kennedy. I'm not convinced, but I concede the possibility: he certainly kept his religion out of his politics better than any US president since.)
Many folks older than you are still fondly reminiscing about Saint John the Kennedy. Note that he didn't offer to do something to improve the quality of life for every US citizen, but rather to allow every US citizen do something to improve the quality of life of the government. And Vietnam. Remember that? Kennedy sent the first troops in, as I recall.
Realistically, all Presidents want to improve the quality of life of every American citizen. Problem is that their definition of "improved" and your definition (or mine) don't necessarily match up.
Clinton apparently thought that the Assault Weapon Ban would be a good thing for all Americans. I happen to disagree, having read the text of the law. You, on the other hand, might very well believe that ugly rifles are evil, and should be banned.
Bush apparently thinks that letting it lapse would be a good thing. I happen to agree with that, since I don't think there is anything intrinsically evil about an ugly rifle. Some of you, no doubt, will disagree with that move.
Same with everything else. Propose something to "improve the quality of life of every US citizen", and a large minority (or large majority, perhaps) will think you are an unmitigated ass for even considering making this heinous change to our way of life. And most of the rest won't think you are going far enough....
Bah! The Yankees are not all of Baseball. Though one must admit that they practice the art with a thoroughness and consistency not often seen in the world... ;-)
Care to bet on that? 51% turnout last election. Higher than for Clinton's last election. I wouldn't bet on the number being higher than 55%, as it was in Clinton's first election.
A lot of people are still genuinely angry about Florida's lack of concern for voting rights or even following their own laws.
Yah, it was terrible the way three or four counties counties in Florida did recounts in clear violation of state law. Note that there was a procedure under Florida State Law for contesting elections, which Gore didn't bother to invoke until nearly a month after the election. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court's first ruling on the subject came about before Gore ever bothered to invoke the law that would have actually made those recounts legal.
Actually, most elections are like that. Virtual deadheats. The best part about this site is that you can see how tiny swings in the polls sometimes will produce MAJOR swings in hypothetical Electoral Vote. And contrariwise, from time to time, large swings in the polls will produce negligible effects on the Electoral Vote.
The race is complicated by Louisiana's quaint view that politics should be kept out of politics, so the Senate election is nonpartisan. Rep. Chris John, Rep. David Vitter, state treasurer John Kennedy, and some minor candidates are all running without party affiliation in the Nov. 2 election. If no candidate gets 50%, there will be a runoff election a few weeks later. Insiders think it will be Chris John vs. David Vitter in a runoff. Runoffs are generally on a Saturday, giving more working class people a chance to vote. Once the race coalesces to one Democrat vs. one Republican, the Democrats have a good chance to hold the seat.
politics != partisan.
The "primary" in Louisiana is not a matter of running without party affiliation. It is a matter of not supporting the two-party system. All candidates run on their own merits, and the two highest scoring candidates go on to the runoff. Even if they are from the same party (which happens as often as not). Exception: if one candidate in the primary gets >50% of the vote, there is no runoff.
So, while this assumes that there will be a Democrat and a Republican in the runoff, that is by no means certain. I have voted in runoffs where the choices were two Republicans, two Democrats, one of either and one other unaffiliated, and occasionally one each Republican and Democrat.
My own opinion is that there will be one of each this time. Next time, who knows?
Once you accept that your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election, you can skip voting entirely.
Seriously, if you really believe that your vote doesn't mean anything, why bother?