• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debates: how many is too many?

Luke T. said:
He needs to update his press release page. According to this page, he has 463 electoral votes "available to us."
Click to expand...

Why should he update his ARCHIVES? If he did that, that would just be fodder for those who keep whining that he's somehow "hiding" his positions...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

shanek said:
It is, but that's hardly the fault of the people who run the debates. Besides, if a candidate can make it through all of that and still end up with enough potential electoral votes to win, that right there is a good indication of nationwide support and the justification for the CPD's third criteria is blown away even more.



Uh, no, because the debates take place after the ballot access deadlines expire. Once again, you show how much you want for thinking.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, you are missing the playful satirization of your own positions. I am fully aware the debates occur after any possibility of ballot access.

Your criteria that a candidate must have popular support (but not too much!) to be included in all the debates is ironic, don't you think?
 
Debates: how many is too many?
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Rob Lister here. Two can debate. More than 2 is a media circus. And the media really likes a circus.

Lots of 2 person debates would be great, but public interest would wane pretty quickly. Also, we could expect to see lots scheduling conflicts with the high substance or low media interest opponents.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

Luke T. said:
Your criteria that a candidate must have popular support (but not too much!) to be included in all the debates is ironic, don't you think?
Click to expand...

No, my criteria is that a candidate must have a nonzero chance of winning to be included. If there's no way he can possibly get 270 electoral votes even if every single person who can votes for him, then what's the point?
 
I've heard an idea that I like: no polling requirement for the first debate, 5% polling requirement for the second, and 10% for the third. That way, everyone could get their say initially, but only the ones whose message resonates with the people get invited to the other debates, so the number gets pared down as it goes.[/quote] I think what you REALLY want is a reality show "American President". We start with the top ten candidates and they give their spiels, then America votes and people get eliminated every week. Eventually, there is a final debate between the last two candidates, then America votes, then Simon Cowell completely rips on the candidate, and then they all come out for a final dance number.

Then Ryan Secrest announces the winner. I think, much as I hate to say it, that this format would get more people to vote.

/witty satire off
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

shanek said:
No, my criteria is that a candidate must have a nonzero chance of winning to be included. If there's no way he can possibly get 270 electoral votes even if every single person who can votes for him, then what's the point?
Click to expand...

This assumes you need 270 electorial votes to be elected, and assumes restrictions on the voting of electors.

The electors can pretty much vote for whoever they please, and if there is no majority the house picks from the top three.

Thus anyone eligible to be president has a nonzero chance. Even if we ignore the independence of the elecorial college, any candidate on the ballot in any state has a nonzero chance.

So this criteria is not helpful in narrowing a field, unless you want to talk about reasonable chance, which seems to be exactly what you ate objecting to in the first place...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates: how many is too many?

Suddenly said:
This assumes you need 270 electorial votes to be elected,
Click to expand...

You do. That's not an assumption.

and assumes restrictions on the voting of electors.
Click to expand...

Most states mandate by law whom their electors can vote for, so again, this isn't an assumption. Although I don't thing those laws have ever been tested in court. I have heard of a movement to get some electors to break ranks to get these laws tested; that could prove interesting if it happens.

Thus anyone eligible to be president has a nonzero chance. Even if we ignore the independence of the elecorial college, any candidate on the ballot in any state has a nonzero chance.
Click to expand...

Well, by that logic, anyone in the country who is over 35 years of age, a natural-born citizen, and lived in the US for 14 years has a nonzero chance...
 
As far as I know, the Constitution does not specifically forbid fictional characters from becoming President. So why not Mickey Mouse, or Bugs Bunny, or Daffy Duck (Terroritht theathon! Fire!)? Why not vote for Big Bird, or Kermit, or Grover? Alas, Elmo is not yet old enough. Why not Batman? Why not Homer Simpson?

Get out the vote!
 
Dorian Gray said:
As far as I know, the Constitution does not specifically forbid fictional characters from becoming President.
Click to expand...

The laws of reality do.
 
Dorian Gray said:
The laws of reality are not in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is based on Common Law, which very much encompasses the laws of reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom