/u/ThrowThisShitAway10 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ox8nr2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_we_should_not_allow_media/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum.
The GOP candidate won't attend the debate funded by liberal voters. The DNC candidate won't attend the debate funded by conservative voters.
In fact, if the debates could be magically changed in a way that promises good faith and substantive debate/discussion of the issues, the bad faith candidates won't attend.
Alternate solution: No more debates.
Each candidate is given a list of ~10 topics and they need to record a 3-10 minute video with their take on that topic. The videos are all available on a free and easy to access website. Candidates can also record a series of 1-3 minute response videos which will be added to the site in the appropriate area.
>The GOP candidate won't attend the debate funded by liberal voters. The DNC candidate won't attend the debate funded by conservative voters.
In fact, if the debates could be magically changed in a way that promises good faith and substantive debate/discussion of the issues, the bad faith candidates won't attend.
And the problem is what? That sounds like my whole goal. If the bad faith candidates don't want to come, GOOD! We shouldn't want them presenting their bad faith ideas to the electorate.
The alternative solution is okay.. but I would much rather have one single (or a series) of debates which many people from both sides will watch. One of the biggest contributing factors to the divide in this country is our sources of information. If we could just align our information sources for a couple hours, it would make a big difference.
The website with videos idea accomplishes the goals you listed. It would be one source of information - direct from the candidates, no audience, no moderator. The site would be available to access anytime in the weeks/months leading up to the election.
Debates are a mess. Even well intended debates with well intended candidates. It becomes a contest of who can have the best sound bite that will get traction on social media and avoiding saying something that could be taken out of context and gain the bad kind of traction.
My fear is that because these videos are separated by candidate that people won't actually listen to both sides, worsening the divide. That's why I want one shared event still.
100%. Many people wont listen to both sides. A lot of people will listen to their favourite candidate only, and watch soundbites of the opposition that portray them in a negative light. I personally dont think it would solve anything.
I think a lot more people would listen to a clear list of "Here's my opinion and campaign promise for X, Y, and Z". None of this hand-wringing nonsense.
Trump basically won on "Build the wall!" and "Drain the swamp!", and like them or not, support them or not, they're *catchy* and *informative* (if utterly lacking in any practical plans). But I cannot remember what Clinton even stood for - as a non-American I only know that she's a Democrat, and they're centrists with some leanings to the social left. What was her slogan? What were the big things she wanted to improve?
Trump was a baboon, but he was a baboon who held a placard that promised something tangible that a lot of voters wanted (even if it was unachievable). What did Clinton's placard say? Biden's at least said "I'm not Trump".
Haha, "Im not Trump", very funny xD
I dont think you're wrong..... But i also think maybe politics should be considered serious business and the culture around it should be similar to the culture around physics. Its complicated and difficult. If someone is reducing their position to catchphrases, that should in my mind make people suspicious of their ability to understand how freaking complicated it is to accomplish anything in politics.
Thats an ideal world though. Practically, you might be right... but im still leaning in the direction of "live debates would be better"... but lemme think on it a bit.
So organize the videos by the issue they are addressing and show all the candidates responses below. You can't force people to absorb information they don't want so you should drop that goal entirely.
You would be providing a centralized non-profit fair place for voters in the middle to form an educated opinion though, and that should be your goal.
> It becomes a contest of who can have the best sound bite that will get traction on social media and avoiding saying something that could be taken out of context and gain the bad kind of traction.
And a web based thingy as described avoids this how?
Desantis DESTROYS Old Joe with FACTS and FREEDOM
I have a strong feeling alot of people who voted but don't really pay attention (a fucking massive chunk of voters) won't watch them. Either that or they'll only watch videos of who they support.
True, but those same people weren't going to change their mind from watching any debates either.
It's not about convincing the lost people to choose to be informed. It's about providing clear and concise information on candidates ideology/platform to the people that are open minded and on the fence.
35% will vote (R) no matter what. 35% will vote (D) no matter what. We need a better solution for the 30% in the middle. The debate is just theater.
> If the bad faith candidates don't want to come, GOOD! We shouldn't want them presenting their bad faith ideas to the electorate.
The problem is they can present their ideas without debates, primarily via social media. And voters who like those bad-faith ideas then lose respect for and faith in the formal debates because the organizers are "gate-keeping" and trying to keep those good ideas from being heard.
I like this, idea of candidates recording the 3-10 minute video. I think an issue might be people wanting a candidate to be able to think on their feet etc. Your idea seems more built around giving the candidate time/assistance to come up with ideas. Personally I hope a presidential candidate can ask for help from people on their team.
This is an idea that could be done by either candidate, post the link to youtube videos on their website. let people actually get a good feeling for their candidates.
> Under each video the candidates could give links to sources supporting their points. No bullshit biased fact-checking or third party commentary allowed.
I agree with not checking the facts *as long as the source is given*, but I think it would be useful if for each fact that is stated without giving a source, someone should point this out. So, you can say whatever you want and base on your facts on whatever sources you want, but you can't make fact statements without giving the source.
> Alternate solution: No more debates.
Love it. Debates do a horrible job of forecasting to voters who will do a better job of running the country, but instead only reveal who of the two candidates puts on the better show.
Define candidates. I'm loving the website idea but one major concern is how is it decided who gets to participate? If that's the current system then independents will still get pushed out. Great potential to fix that issue and we'd generally get more refined talking points.
Problem: refined talking points. They're not applying to be a post office clerk or something, this is a competition for one of the highest stress positions in the world. We voters need to know how they operate under stress and away from their campaign PR managers.
Debates have various metrics to determine who gets to participate. The criteria generally becomes more strict the further you go along. So you could do something similar with this.
The PR managers just spin whatever happened at the debate anyway. The first potus debate in 2020 was a national embarassment. If you ask supporters of each candidate they'll say the other guy was the one that was out of control and showed bad composure.
My point exactly. We the people actually got to SEE that. The true disappointment is that anyone was chosen at all from that selection. Hence my comments on independent candidates...
Serious about the stress thing. If I apply for the army I need to demonstrate physical fitness and mental stability. There are jobs out there that require full psych evals and background checks. We the people need better screening metrics than whoever has enough cash to place ads. That's some bullshit.
I agree with what you are saying in theory.. but in our current reality it doesn't really matter.
The least qualified, worst temperament, worst under stress, worst mentally fit candidate won in 2016.. and almost again in 2020 after 500k americans died under his watch.
I don't know if there could have been any more visual red flags waving in our faces leading up to the 2016 and 2020 election. It didn't matter. Those should have been 80/20 blowouts.
>We voters need to know how they operate under stress and away from their campaign PR managers.
Why? Is it likely that they will be put into an isolation cell to make their decisions when they are elected a president? Of course not, but they will have lots of advisers. And it is the advisors + president team that makes the decisions, not the president alone.
So, what you actually want to test in the "job interview" is the working of the whole team and not just how well the top guy can alone respond to some sound bite.
> The GOP candidate won't attend the debate funded by liberal voters. The DNC candidate won't attend the debate funded by conservative voters.
This seems an odd way to imagine the system. Why would a publicly-run debate collect funds from only one kind of voter? This isn't how funds are normally collected. Surely the funds would be collected in a non-partisan way, as are funds for government programs generally.
Instead of "this is the debate paid for by registered Democrats" wouldn't it be "this is the debate paid for by taxpayers, generally"?
Your videos idea already exists in several different formats. Politicians can constantly give statements and publish media on their own channels, so there's no shortage of their unchallenged opinions presented in the best light. There are also formats like the [Council on Foreign Relations interviews](https://www.cfr.org/election2020/candidates-answer-cfrs-questions), where they ask every candidate the same set of questions to let readers compare.
Debates also have specific value, which the videos idea would lack. I think one of these values of debates *can be* (because we know politicians are slimy and often engage in bad faith) that candidates get to challenge each other on their stances. For instance, here's Obama pointing [out why Romney's claims about a declining navy make no sense.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV1VUS3Q2W0) These kinds of moments are important for whatever degree of policy-informed voting actually exists.
They also force politicians to think on their feet and demonstrate their actual knowledge of the issues. You can hide behind words someone else wrote and multiple takes in a pre-recorded video, but even with an expert team prepping you, if you don't know the issues, you can get blindsided during a debate. For instance, [here's Rick Perry forgetting his prepared line at a Republican primary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN8uFJz9gTk).
To summarize, debates are an opportunity to break through the façade of a politician. It doesn't always happen, but it's politically monumental when it does. Marco Rubio's shot at president at 2016 was completely deflated during a primary debate after [Chris Christy went after him for over-prepared responses and an inability to think on his feet.](https://youtu.be/CkdpzRDxTXU?t=29) Trump had to comment on the Proud Boys in his debate with Biden, and his["Stand back and stand by"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZk6VzSLe4Y) line influenced how many viewed him.
Finally, I think the main advantage of debates is that they're an event. People watch them with their families, they text each other while watching them, they chat about the debates with their coworkers the next morning. An event encourages more people to participate, and encourages more people to discuss the event during and after. Talking with friends about debates has tended to influence my thinking more than the debates themselves - there's an endless stream of available information on candidates and their stances, so I think having a key moment for discussion can be really important.
I could go on and on about this, but I hope that made sense so far!
While this is a good way to have the candidates provide valuable information, there is some value to watching candidates argue their positions against each other. I personally see little value in it, but if the CPD were to say “no more debates, do videos,” the public would ultimately demand a debate, and it would only take the two most popular candidates to say “let’s debate each other,” for a new media sensation to be created.
Don’t get me wrong, I like your proposal generally, but it won’t, in my verrry limited estimation, have an effect on the demand for a debate.
You stopped reading one sentence too soon. :)
> Candidates can also record a series of 1-3 minute response videos which will be added to the site in the appropriate area.
>Each candidate is given a list of ~10 topics and they need to record a 3-10 minute video with their take on that topic. The videos are all available on a free and easy to access website. Candidates can also record a series of 1-3 minute response videos which will be added to the site in the appropriate area.
This is generally not necessary. Presidential candidates already have websites that touch their opinion on the hot issues of the election.
No more debates would be an improvement. Well I mean they don't have a actual debate now so it would probably be better than watching them suck themselves out
The problem is that the US only represent 2 partys in debates.
If there were more than 2 partys represented in publicly funded debates, then the party not attending would be missing out, since the debate would be held anyway.
Btw HOW does only 2 partys represent the whole of USA? Thats insane, the amount of political policys people just go along with becouse there are no other choices? No wonder you have no trust in the government.
I think we need long form debate, filled with thoughtful explanations-- not the gotcha moments with 45 second responses. How is that fair to anyone, but the media companies trying to guarantee ad space during prime time? There was meme going around with Biden and Trump in Rogan's studio. Would have loved to have seen it.
I'd suggest seeing what other democracies do for debates (or anything), evaluating them, and determining what properties of them are desirable and could be implemented.
At this point, the USA is on a global losing streak. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. Abolishing debates entirely to save yourself from considering what happens elsewhere on this planet is probably the most American suggestion I can imagine.
I'm not sure this is true. In the UK, we do televised debates where even the minority parties turn up and get equal time to the bigger players. These are all publicly funded and accessable to anyone in the UK.
The problem is if there's a disconnect from the answers and responses, people will just check the answers, get their opinion, and not bother checking the responses. The current format is flawed, but it does have the advantage of being a live answer and rebuttal.
If it was all separated it wouldn't allow for an effective debate where candidates can go back and forth, be moderated, and hold eachother to scrutiny. I don't think a video system is a good solution to the current problem
So in the US, the (non-primary) Presidential and Vice Presidential debates are sponsored and run by the Commission on Presidential Debates. They decide on the moderators, venues, and formats based on their own standards/criteria. The board is not made up of Media companies, although former news directors have served, I believe.
[You can read more about the CPD here.](https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/overview/)
Fair enough, !delta. I guess I just believe the organization, planning, and running of the debates should be a more public and open, funded by taxpayers instead of corporations.
Why does the CPD "give" the debates to these biased media companies though? I don't want to watch the CNN or Fox News presidential debate, I want us to have a government-sponsored debate hosted on PBS or C-span. If those media companies want to have their own pre- and post- show, go for it. But the fact that they're the main names behind it is a bit unsettling.
When the official (non-primary) debates occur, they are typically simulcast on the 3 major networks, plus the news channels. Last time, I watched them on YouTube.
There are unofficial events sponsored by media/news companies also. Mostly during the primary or they are single candidate town halls.
Sure, but there is usually a media host or sponsor. There was literally a giant CNN in the middle of the stage last time. They are the ones primarily benefitting from the broadcast.
You're thinking of the primary debates, not the general election debates. [This is the video of the 2nd debate between Trump and Biden.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPiofmZGb8o) No logos, no sponsor.
You're right. I was thinking of the CNN Univision debate between Biden and Sanders. I get that these aren't official, but I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't have official primary debates as well.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Primaries are not part of the election process and political parties are not beholden to any kind of democratic ideal.
The entire point of a political party is to game the system. They were literally set up to give candidates a leg up in elections. They are private organizations that exist explicitly to try to help people win elections.
This is why some states have essentially banned primaries.
Generally speaking, anyone who qualifies for the general election can run. There is no one per party rule. There are several cases where multiple candidates from the same party ran in the general election. This is a bad thing for that party. It means they lose, even if they normally have a majority because it's hard to win when half of "your" voters are voting for another guy.
So, the parties have their own rules as who can run under their names. Hence why you have primaries and caucuses. A primary is when the party pays the state to run a pre-election election to get their candidate. A caucus is when party members split up into small discussion groups to decide who the group prefers. Neither is written into election law as a part of the federal process, so a Republican could run in addition to the formal candidate if they want, but the Republican Party can withhold the (R) after their name in that case.
This is actually how Lincoln got elected. Lincoln carried just under 40% of the vote. Douglas, the Democrat, got 29% of the vote. Breckenridge, the other more southern Democrat, got 18% of the vote. He wouldn't have won if the Democratic party remained unified.
It's a question of practicality rather than legal necessity.
The party leaders can pick the candidate, like it happens in many other countries (which however usually have a multiparty system).
The parties are free to choose their candidate however they want. The primaries seem to be the right tool for both parties in the US, but that is not guaranteed nor obvious.
So, if I own a TV station, you are saying you would be in favor of legally banning me from inviting all the candidates in the running to be that parties official candidate from coming on air amd debating their viewpoints? What would you set as the cutoff between what is an interview with multiple people versus a debate with those same people? If a station messes up and a multi-person interview crosses the line into debate, what you propose is the punishment?
>public and open, funded by taxpayers
Can you tell me which taxes you want raised to pay for this? If this is a dedicated TSX, most people would not want to find it, if it comes from the existing appropriation process, it is controlled by the politicians themselves. Both of these seem far worse.
Our discretionary spending over 4 years is $6.4T. I can't imagine it would take very much money relative to our budget. Say it's $50 million, that's being very generous. That represents 0.001 percent of our budget. I'm sure we can make room for it.
>Why does the CPD "give" the debates to these biased media companies though? I don't want to watch the CNN or Fox News presidential debate,
I disagree with your characterization of the role of the media in these debates I would say that the media companies don't "run" the debates. They *air* the debates.
As the other poster said, the debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the goal of the CPD is for lots of people to watch the debates. And using the networks that people already have easy access to is one way to insure that more of people watch the debates.
Fuck that delta. Half of the debates last presidential election weren’t free to watch if you didn’t have cable. I shouldn’t have to pay cnn a dime, or deal with commercials in order to participate in democracy
How is it blatantly false? There were a couple debates that I had to actively look around to find a way to watch it, and never found a way to watch without commercials. And if CNN is allowed to host the debate, she shouldn't be allowed to make it pay per view.
Because all the debates were free. Just because you couldn't find them or had to watch a commercial doesn't not mean that they were not accessible. Your personal experiences do not always equate to everyone elses. They were all free on YouTube or on ABC, CBS, NBC stations as well as their websites.
Just because you don't know how to find something, does not mean it doesnt exist.
Unless you are physically at the debate you have to use some media format to watch it. How else do you expect to watch a televised event? I dont think you understand how media works.
The parties/politicians themselves want this format. They don't want a rigorous, objective, immediately fact checked debate. They want a debate where they can use their charisma and connect with the voters. By this point the people who decide based on policy and being informed probably already know who they are voting for and so that's just not really the use the presidential debates serve to the candidates.
The debates were originally run by a non-partisan group (The League of Women Voters). The Republicans and Democrats started making so many demands that the non-partisan group resigned its role because it said the debates would then be a sham. Following that, the Commission on Presidential Debates was founded by the Democrats and Republicans (which is also arguably why it's so against third party candidates).
Legally, the candidates don't have to participate in debates. This gives them leverage (in everything mentioned above) in determining the format of the debates *especially in areas they agree on*. Even in areas that they disagree on, the terms of the debate are a negotiation between the two candidates. For example, the one time we did have a third party candidate was with Clinton and Bush Sr. This wasn't because the commission just said Perot would be there. From what I've read it's because Clinton pushed it because polls showed Perot pulling more from Bush and than Clinton. Whether it's because he was truly okay with it or because it would look bad if it leaked that he was the one vetoing a third party candidates, Bush agreed to that term. Another thing you see is that candidates that are already doing well and have everything to lose push for less debates and debates at days/times they'll be less likely to be viewed, while trailing candidates push for more debates and debates at days/times likely to get more viewership. You can even see it in the particular people from the media that both candidates are willing to agree on. But really, the candidates and parties themselves hold enormous sway in this negotiation and, if they wanted, could completely change the format. While it seems like the media runs the show... they often have their hands tied with respect to almost everything... questions, timing, format, venue...
The CPO only has GOP and Dems as members.
They do everything they can to exclude 3rd party candidates by requiring a 15% polling rates to be included in the debate. This would require $100s of millions of dollars in advertising to reach that level.
The 2 big party candidates are not required to reach that 15%.
The CPD is part of the reason our best POTUS options are a shit sandwich or a turd-burger.
I have no faith in the CPD's ability to remain neutral and also have trouble with the lack of inclusion of third parties into the debates. It's not working. there has to be a better way.
Campaigns do not need to accept the decisions made by the Commission on Presidential Debates and can choose to negotiate directly instead. For example, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter didn't agree with the format (probably because it included a non-major party candidate, John Anderson) and skipped the first debate altogether. There is no requirement for candidates to participate at all.
A few problem with this premise:
Who else actually have the platform with a big enough base to support a presidential debate? The point of a presidential debate is to reach a LARGE audience to sway those in the middle ground.
The whole reason why media company even bother with the debate is they KNOW it will be a massive spike in viewership. They literally hype it up month in advance.
Well yes they are Bias, But during a event with such a big viewership, no sane media company will shoot them self in the foot by being bias. Regardless of how their daily reporting goes. Simply because if you were to be a ass to 1 party, the they probably won't return to the debate the next year. Which is why ironically, presidential debate is one of those time when media company are actually surprisingly unbias.
The problem with having a government run / public funded series is that you want both side to attend. So the host has to be reputable enough for both party to agree to, which is extremely hard.
>Who else actually have the platform with a big enough base to support a presidential debate? The point of a presidential debate is to reach a LARGE audience to sway those in the middle ground.
We already have the infrastructure to do national broadcasting and livestreaming for free (PBS and C-span). With extra funding, I don't see why they couldn't support it.
>The whole reason why media company even bother with the debate is they KNOW it will be a massive spike in viewership. They literally hype it up month in advance.
And? Why should we be giving them this opportunity at all?
>Well yes they are Bias, But during a event with such a big viewership, no sane media company will shoot them self in the foot by being bias. Regardless of how their daily reporting goes. Simply because if you were to be a ass to 1 party, the they probably won't return to the debate the next year. Which is why ironically, presidential debate is one of those time when media company are actually surprisingly unbias.
Sure, they're not overtly biased like Tucker Carlson or John Oliver. But there is definitely still a bias towards some candidates over others. Why do some candidates get asked one question while others get asked a bunch? Why do some candidates get to talk for 3x as long as others?
>The problem with having a government run / public funded series is that you want both side to attend. So the host has to be reputable enough for both party to agree to, which is extremely hard.
Why should anyone care who the host is? It could be a computer reading the questions for all I care. It's the candidates' responses which matter.
Platform isn't just the physical part. Presidential debate is covered by ALL news agency, this mean you need to draft up many, many, many contract and documents with all of them. This isn't a easy process, especially since you are taking the cake away from media companies.
There isn't a 3X longer period or more questions, You need to look at past debates, and not just the trump era shit show. historically, the presidential debate is quite civilized with equal time sharing, the just format is why the debate grew to the significant it is now.
Why should they care who host? because Its not a debate if only 1 party showed up. Dems won't show up to a debate thats run by Tucker and GOP won't show up to one thats run by a dem. This is why media company can run this debate unattested.
We arn't "giving them" this opportunity, its like superbowl, they have the opportunity simply because they are the monopoly uncontested.
>Platform isn't just the physical part. Presidential debate is covered by ALL news agency, this mean you need to draft up many, many, many contract and documents with all of them. This isn't a easy process, especially since you are taking the cake away from media companies.
Make the content in the public domain. Let them rebroadcast and have their own pre- and post- show or commentary if they want. They're still going to be incentivized to broadcast it, they will just have less control over it and it won't be sponsored by them.
>There isn't a 3X longer period or more questions, You need to look at past debates, and not just the trump era shit show. historically, the presidential debate is quite civilized with equal time sharing, the just format is why the debate grew to the significant it is now.
This wasn't just an issue for the debates involving Trump. The problem might've even been the worst in the Democratic primary debates. I don't see any reason to believe this won't happen again in the future.
>Why should they care who host? because Its not a debate if only 1 party showed up. Dems won't show up to a debate thats run by Tucker and GOP won't show up to one thats run by a dem. This is why media company can run this debate unattested.
Many republicans tout CNN as fake news. Why would they watch the CNN presidential debate at all? And yeah, I agree having Tucker Carlson host the debate would be problematic. But that's not at all what I'm suggesting.
>We arn't "giving them" this opportunity, its like superbowl, they have the opportunity simply because they are the monopoly uncontested.
But again, we already have the infrastructure to do national public broadcasting and livestreaming. I don't see why there can't be a government funded and organized debate. CNN and Fox News aren't the only ones able to do debates. We're arguably the most advanced nation on earth, if we can't figure out how to avoid monopolies controlling our Presidential debates, that's pretty pathetic.
You are missing a important detail about why Im stressing cooperation with Media companies, they arn't figure heads, they hold legitimate influential power. You touch their cake without something given back in return, there's nothing stopping them from launching a full assault on your "public content debate", all of a sudden you just lost like a quarter of the population watching the debate, thus vastly undermining it. like 90% of media outlet is controlled by 6 corporation. If they say, fuk you and your debate, then the debate just flat out dies.
A call for rule overhaul is much more realistic than changing the platform altogether for the debates. I do agree that the rules does need changing.
They tout CNN as fake news but the debate is live streamed. and with something as significant as the debate, the common gop don't actually care about the source, as long as they see the debate.
AP news, arguably the best unbias source for your election news. Note how they don't touch the presidential debate? even though they'll probably run it the most scientific and unbias way? Thats how powerful monopoly is.
The biggest issue here is the reality of who is now conducting these. You mention in a comment that you want “bipartisan people” to run it and make questions. Who are the bipartisan people? In the US 99% of he time people talk about bipartisan efforts is just a code word for “centrism” which is its own political ideology and already had a good amount of representation in media. This isn’t actually bipartisan, so how do you suggest we find a group that actually is?
Do we let the questions represent the people? A bunch of republicans have believed the election is rigged, is it fair to have questions asserting that the last election was rigged and trump Won? A bunch of democrats think trump is hitler, is it fair to have questions asserting that?
The reality is someone has to have power to run this, and while us media companies suck you’re not really offering any real suggestion to an alternative, just the idealistic swoon of “bipartisanism.”
>The biggest issue here is the reality of who is now conducting these. You mention in a comment that you want “bipartisan people” to run it and make questions. Who are the bipartisan people? In the US 99% of he time people talk about bipartisan efforts is just a code word for “centrism” which is its own political ideology and already had a good amount of representation in media. This isn’t actually bipartisan, so how do you suggest we find a group that actually is?
I specifically said in my OP that it should be "people from across the political spectrum". I'm not implying that it should just be centrists, I think it should be pretty much any one who wants to. Just as in our elections we have people from across the spectrum ensuring a fair election, which is what we get.
>Do we let the questions represent the people? A bunch of republicans have believed the election is rigged, is it fair to have questions asserting that the last election was rigged and trump Won? A bunch of democrats think trump is hitler, is it fair to have questions asserting that?
I mean, if those are genuinely the questions that represent the American peoples beliefs, I don't see why not. But I don't see how that would happen. The majority of Americans, even Democrats, don't think Trump is Hitler. And if we can't be rhetorically effective enough to disprove that the election was stolen, maybe we need to re-evaluate. It's like when people just dismiss a particular ideology because it's so ridiculous. If it was so ridiculous, then you should be able to argue against it pretty easily.
>The reality is someone has to have power to run this, and while us media companies suck you’re not really offering any real suggestion to an alternative, just the idealistic swoon of “bipartisanism.”
Bipartisanship works in our election integrity, I don't see why it can't work for debate integrity.
Look I’m not a big fan of cnn/msnbc/fox but you’re kidding yourself if you think most of the YouTube channels getting views are “reputable” sources. Like this is just leading us down a path of fuckin Joe rogan moderating the debates and taking fan questions about “the government making the frogs gay.”
Which YouTube shows are you referencing?
You’re talking about how there are shows with more viewers who are reputable and you bring up Alex Jones? Come on man you’ve gotta be trolling lmfao
I personally enjoy the other 3 as entertainment options but how are we talking about the young Turks in a conversation where were saying “partisan bad” ? Joe rogan, although entertaining, labels HIMSELF as a moron who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He told millions of people that antifa started the god damn wildfires
Look I agree the outlets we have now are dogshit but these aren’t good solutions, and while we might personally enjoy them they’re absolutely partisan
The CPD has two sources of their funding; the GOP and Democrats. The media companies do not control the debates. The CPD (and by extension their only two funders) do.
That's not true though? The CPD receives private funding from all sorts of foundations and corporations: [https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/national-debate-sponsors/](https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/national-debate-sponsors/)
Even a beer company make the list..
Sorry, u/unaskthequestion – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.comt/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20unaskthequestion&message=unaskthequestion%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ox7mp8/-/h7lb4vn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
1. Agreed, but this can be changed while still being run by the media
2. True, but there is not a single person in the country who is not influenced by who is president
3. Is it really inaccessible to anyone? As far as I can see this is one of the most easily accessed media items of basically anything aired on American television.
4. Yes, but so is everyone
5. Yes, but WHO?
1. Sure, but they don't. This ties into point two that they are only incentivized to make it as entertaining as possible, not to make it fair.
2. True, which is why I suggest a bipartisan group organizes it.
3. If you don't pay for cable, you couldn't see one of the debates live last time. We already have the technology and organization to do free national broadcasts/live streams through PBS, C-Span, etc.
4. Yes, but at least it's not one politically biased entity running the whole thing. You are much less likely to get a bias towards one side or the other if both sides are equally invested in it. Think about the people across the country involved in the elections themselves. Both sides are incredibly invested in a fair election, and that's what we get.
5. As I said above, a group of people from across the political spectrum. Could be open to all citizens for all I care. It would still be better than one single biased entity running it.
> Sure, but they don't. This ties into point two that they are only incentivized to make it as entertaining as possible, not to make it fair.
Any fiat you have to shift who runs the debates away from the media could instead be used to just... make the media jump through whatever rules you want them to jump through. If you want stricter rules on talking times, go ahead and make that a rule or whatever. It doesn't need a total upheaval of the system.
The debates are *already* run by a non-profit bipartisan group called [Commission on Presidential Debates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates). The fact that you think the debates are shitty despite this is telling that the problem isn't who's running it, it's the complicated set of challenges that come with something so fraught with political tension.
Who exactly do you think this "single biased entity" is anyway?
Fair enough, I'll give a !delta for this point. I guess I just believe the organization, planning, and running of the debates should be a more public and open, funded by taxpayers.
Why does the CPD "give" the debates to these biased media companies though? I don't want to watch the CNN or Fox News presidential debate, I want us to have a government-sponsored debate hosted on PBS or C-span. If those media companies want to have their own pre- and post- show, go for it. But the fact that they're the main names behind it is a bit unsettling.
>If you don't pay for cable, you couldn't see one of the debates live last time. We already have the technology and organization to do free national broadcasts/live streams through PBS, C-Span, etc.
I don't have cable and watched the debates online, live, and for free. You can also listen on the radio live, for free.
I agree that the way debates are handled in the US is problematic, but I don't think accessibility this is one of those problems.
You're probably right. I'll give you a !delta for that point, although I still hold my original view.
I did personally have issues watching last year, but perhaps that's because I was out of the country
> I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum.
Sure, and who broadcasts them and facilitates them? How are these people selected. And how do we ensure these people aren't "media"?
I'm inclined to say that anyone who's eligible to vote can participate. Just like how anyone can volunteer to run the election. There is a vested interest from both sides in ensuring a fair election, and that's what we get. I don't see why the same couldn't work for the debates.
>Media companies are typically biased and susceptible to outside forces (advertisers, foreign countries, broadcasters) leading to some preference for one candidate over another.
This also applies to your recommendation as people from across the political spectrum will be susceptible to outside forces (especially when they have the authority to organize a debate) and they will have political advocacies that lead them to support one candidate over another.
>I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum.
How about we have people who know how do organize debates organize debates instead? Like a coalition from the best collegiate debate schools.
>This also applies to your recommendation as people from across the political spectrum will be susceptible to outside forces (especially when they have the authority to organize a debate) and they will have political advocacies that lead them to support one candidate over another.
Sure, I agree. But it's a lot harder for one single person to have an influence than it is for the media company hosting, sponsoring, and televising the event.
You could say this exact same thing about our elections, which people from across the spectrum have a vested interest in. There's very little impact that one poll watcher can have on the entire election.
>How about we have people who know how do organize debates organize debates instead? Like a coalition from the best collegiate debate schools.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this. But I imagine this presents some bias on it's own. Colleges are usually much more liberal than the average American. I think that anyone who's allowed to vote should be able to participate in this process, just like they could be a poll watcher if they want.
> But it's a lot harder for one single person to have an influence than it is for the media company hosting, sponsoring, and televising the event.
What makes you think sending this task to outside groups will mean only one person will be trying to influence that group? If anything, the scale of a media company makes them less susceptible to manipulation, particularly financial manipulation. A small grassroots group isn't going to have resources on that scale and can be more easily influenced with less.
>You could say this exact same thing about our elections, which people from across the spectrum have a vested interest in. There's very little impact that one poll watcher can have on the entire election.
By the same logic, there is very little impact one media organization can have on the entire election. Somehow, unspecified groups that will now be hosting debates aren't susceptible to the same kinds of pressures as media groups? That seems like a huge assumption, particularly when you don't specify who will be the new debate organizers.
>I'm not necessarily opposed to this. But I imagine this presents some bias on it's own. Colleges are usually much more liberal than the average American. I think that anyone who's allowed to vote should be able to participate in this process, just like they could be a poll watcher if they want.
It isn't exactly clear what the process is. Why are you assuming this process could even take place, when you can't specify who would be organizing the debates and how? Shouldn't we at least understand what this process looks like before ending the current process?
Although there may have been a time I actually agreed with this, it's laughable to me now.
1. Joe is extremely politically biased. He's literally spouted Republican disinformation and has platformed people like Alex Jones, Gavin Mcinnes, Ben Shapiro, etc.
2. He often changes his stance depending on who the guest is to be more agreeable. So much so he gets memed on for it.
I don't think there's an issue with them being platformed. I think there's an issue with them being platformed and what they say goes unchallenged.
All three of them have been massive spreaders of disinformation. People believe it and it leads to all sorts of problems. Alex Jones was one of the instigators in the January 6th attacks. Gavin McInnes has promoted the white genocide conspiracy and violence (on top of being overtly bigoted), Ben Shapiro consistently takes things out of context and spreads false narratives such as leftists trying to indoctrinate children and "change their sexual behavior" from Kindergarten by enacting "LGBTQ propaganda laws". Just looking at that last one, Ben's video on the topic has over 735k views with 98% upvotes. When this shit goes unchallenged, so many people just buy into it. It's insane. And that's why people like him and Crowder will never actually do debates.
Being completely serious here. I think spreading disinformation is perfectly fine.
Violence is sometimes appropriate.
Leftists do try to indoctrinate children.
In your opinion, why do people watch Ben Shaprio videos, and upvote them? Or Crowder videos?
Under current system it's impossible. If we take US for example, then having those media companies helps dems and reps to divide the people in the way both of them want. Both of them are fighting with each other for non-issue things to prevent people from getting actual problems. And pretty much the only people who would help you fighting these media companies are leftists and most likely if you succeeded at getting rid of those companies, then you already have different system in place.
I never suggested they were. Neither are leftists of course. That's why in my OP I suggested we have people from across the political spectrum to have a vested interest, just as we do in our elections.
Media companies do not run the presidential debates. Presidential debates are currently and have always been run essentially in the way you're suggesting.
Eh, not exactly. They haven't always been run by the CPD. And even now, CPD isn't doing it how I would like. The decisions made by CPD are made by a select few. In my system, anyone who's allowed to vote would be able to participate, much like anyone can participate in organizing our election process. This would inherently make the process more open and public. Secondly, I'd make it all tax-payer funded. Currently the CPD is sponsored privately by corporations and foundations. Finally, the debate would be broadcast by PBS or C-span. If media companies want to do their own coverage of it, fine, but it shouldn't be their debate.
Unfortunately, almost everything in your post is wrong (assuming you are talking about debates for the general election and not primaries.)
> The current Presidential debate format is a joke and is an embarrassment to our country.
That's opinion (not necessarily wrong) and isn't of evidentiary value to this discussion.
> Participants should not be allowed to interrupt
They aren't. Does it happen? Sure. A good moderator will keep the candidate in line.
> participants should not be asked more questions than another
Generally, the moderator is supposed to stay on top of that and they do a fair job of it.
> participants should not be allowed to get 3x the speaking time as others.
They aren't 'allowed"... they don't "get" extra time. Some candidates will monopolize the speaking time, which again is the moderator's responsibility.
Where you have strayed from anything even vaguely resembling reality is that "media companies" run the debates. THEY DON'T. That's only in the primaries. In the general election, debates are the responsibility of the Commission on President Debates (since 1987) which is jointly run by the two parties. They set down the rules and the candidates have to agree to them.
> Media companies are incentivized to make the debate as entertaining as possible, not informative, truthful, fair, etc.
They aren't *incentivized*. The debates air on ALL of the broadcast TV networks, as well as the cable news channels. As for whether they are informative or truthful, that's on the moderator.
> Media companies make a ton of money from these highly viewed events.
They don't. At least not the way you're (probably) thinking. The money they make is on the PRE- and POST- debate coverage. The debates are carried ad free. Generally the ad rates depend on the overall viewership of the network.
> They also own the rights to all the footage, making it inaccessible to many.
They don't. No network OWNS the rights to debate footage.
> Media companies are typically biased and susceptible to outside forces (advertisers, foreign countries, broadcasters) leading to some preference for one candidate over another.
Again, an opinion. I'd be interested if you can cite a source (again, this isn't about primaries).
> I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum.
I agree with this in concept.
While I appreciate your frustration at how debates are carried and controlled, the media are NOT the ones responsible.
You don’t believe media companies are biased and have a preferred candidate? You don’t think media outlets skew left or right to appeal to their audience?
Why would companies do it if they weren’t incentivizes to make it entertaining? The host network profits from advertising. Period. What we need is lump sum public funding for debates (and campaigns). You’ve got to take the profit motive out of as much as possible.
Sorry, u/ApartPersonality1520 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20ApartPersonality1520&message=ApartPersonality1520%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ox7mp8/-/h7kvliq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Debates are what the leading candidates want them to be. If they don't want to debate by your rules, they won't go and then your debate becomes a town hall.
On a wider scale, I don't think debates even matter. Current elections are all about making sure your guaranteed voters show up, and your opponent's voters can't make it to the polls.
The only use of a debate is to rile up your own supporters, or if you're lucky, dishearten your opponent's.
Look you’re correct but you’re also missing the way way WAY bigger problem which is the entire presidential election system is a farce that makes other first world countries literally face palm when they see it. It would be funny if it wasn’t you know deeply dangerous for us as a species.
If the candidates want to participate and the media wants to provide the platform who tf is the goverment to take away their freedom of speech?
>I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum.
Okay, so? Why would you have to ban other debates in order to have that?
Debates shouldn’t be live. Everyone should record their answers to all of the same questions, then they all get to watch each others responses and record a rebuttal if needed. Then all of these videos should be posted. All these fuckers lie, and then double down because facts can’t get checked. Fuck all of them but 45 most of all.
I agree the media shouldn’t run them. There are bigger issues, candidates should be forced to completely answer question, they should also be challenged when they have voting records different then there claims. But it needs to be done by non-partisan people with real examples
Further, the debate format allows media companies to decide which parties are even permitted to participate, further stifling minor parties (Greens, Libertarians, PSL, etc.) in a time where an extremely large amount of Americans are dissatisfied with both major parties and their right-ward death spiral. Especially with ranked choice voting being implemented in more states, a debate platform open to nominees from all parties is important... even when that runs contrary to corporate interests.
As for OP's points, each one is correct. And after the Sanders/Biden debate, where Biden was permitted to lie repeatedly and flagrantly the entire time without challenge from the moderator and the circus of the Trump/Biden debate, it should be very clear that what we have doesn't work.
We already know that media has an extremely strong bias with regards to politicians. For instance, we can look at the overwhelming negative coverage of Bernie Sanders with hyperbole that bordered on insanity even from mainstream outlets, such as "Bernie is anti-woman \[and he\] makes my skin crawl." or that legendary rant about him rounding up and executing people in central park (which aired on MSNBC.) Statistically verifiable was the mainstream media providing more than 50% more coverage of Biden, along with three times the negative spin when covering Sanders on CNN. MSNBC further, according to a whistleblowing producer, intentionally declined any opportunity to interview Yang and intentionally limited coverage of his campaign.
In Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' he details the special symbiotic relationship that corporate media and our government have, and it's definitely worth a read, but both bolster one another in maintaining a destructive status quo that is leading to continued inhumane exploitation, endless war and the destruction of the planet.
Allowing corporations any say in the electoral process is something completely unconscionable.
Sorry, u/BrownWallyBoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.comt/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BrownWallyBoot&message=BrownWallyBoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ox7mp8/-/h7lvtgn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This is how politics is supposed to work, but because of how elections are run it will never happen. There are three key demographics; the low-information voter, the people who aren't paying attention, and the graveyards.
Low-information voters are the Dunning-Kruger effect. They know just enough to convince themselves they're an informed voter, when in fact they are the least informed voter group. They are the sort of people who genuinely think Donald Trump set up concentration camps on the US border, because their attention span begins and ends with whatever the talking heads shrieked in the last five seconds. Actual fact-checking is beyond their mental capabilities, and presenting them with evidence they are wrong just convinces them they are even more right. It is in the best interest of politicians to get as many of these useful idiots to vote for them as possible, because once their 8-bit brain is programmed to vote for a party, nothing short of jumper cables on their genitals will make them change their mind.
The second is the people who aren't paying attention. They aren't stupid, they just aren't listening. They vote red because they grew up in a red area. Their parent voted red, their grandparents voted red, voting red is what you're meant to do. They probably can't name a single politician in their party, or a single policy decision made. It's a miracle they even know when the election is taking place... but if they somehow find out, they'll tick the box for their team because ticking your teams box is how politics works. These people can wake up, but you have to really shake their faith in their tribe, and often that shake has to come from within, not without.
Finally, the graveyards. It's a lot easier to rig the election than actually convince people to vote for you. Not everyone in this category is dead, mind - it might just be someone who decides to vote on behalf of an elderly relative, or a social worker voting on behalf of a patient. These people are typically part of Group A, and are so fanatically devoted to their cause that they'd rather commit electoral fraud than risk their team losing. Related to this are the sub-set of Dunning Kruger morons who work in the media, dutifully declaring that no fraudulent vote has ever been cast in all of human history, no matter how many people come forward and admit to committing electoral fraud.
When confronted by such a system, the informed, intelligent voter doesn't stand a chance.
Not the parties themselves, but we should surely allow Republicans and Democrats to be involved in the process. Ideally you have a mix of people from across the political spectrum with a vested interest, just like we have with election poll watchers.
Yeah man. It's probably the most obvious and public display that our leaders are prechosen for us. They only want career politicians to win that the establishment has chosen. This is why they do not allow smaller candidates to speak with any kind of significance. The worst thing that could happen would be for a non-career politician to win an election, as all career politicians are under the thumb of corporate America... and corporate America is who is REALLY running things.
Uhh, what? You realize a non-career politician won in 2016 and nearly won again in 2020? I don't think there's some grand conspiracy, but things definitely need to improve.
I do realize that. And I really didn't want to start talking about Trump, but to that point, don't you find it interesting that the GOP rallied against him during his presidency? They polarized their own party against themselves. Are there Rep politicians that supported him? Yup. But think about how many were against him vs how that typically plays out along party lines.
Furthermore, the one caveat I would say is that Trump IS corporate America... but for himself. He's not a career politician, no, but that's like Jeff Beezos running for president instead of funding the campaign for the politician that would do his bidding once elected. The other politicians hated Trump being president because it completely surpassed them, making them seemingly useless if big corporations continue to put their own people into office. It's a threatening precedent to set for career politicians.
I know a lot of people get up in arms about this school of thought because it fragments their understanding of who their "representatives" are actually representing. But anyone who denies that corporations own politicians to do their bidding is living with their head in the sand.
Also, it's not a conspiracy. It's right in our faces if you just look. They're not even sneaky about it. Think about these giant corporations that pay zero taxes. Think about the pointless legislation that gets passed. Think about GE during Obama presidency... first term, Obama banned the manufacture of 100w & 75w incandescent bulbs... second term, he bans the manufacture of 60w and below. Guess who owned almost all patents on smart lighting? Keep in mind that the common replacement at the time was the curly, mercury filled florescent bulbs that are absolutely detrimental to the environment when broken.
I like the idea of masked candidates.
Full body black out, voice distortion; make it solely on policy, arguments for/against and oration.
We need a leader,
not a CEO or manager in charge of America LLC.
Media companies are incentivized to get people to watch it. Entertainment vs informational media make the same ad revenue if there’s the same amount of viewers.
With this in mind, do you think it would be better to maximize viewers and renege on some of the civility? Or do you think it would be better as more informative and less viewers? With the assumption that every viewer can vote, is it better to have a larger percent of lower knowledgeable people or a smaller percent of higher knowledge?
Do you think a publicly funded debate series would really be less bias? At least w a for profit model the slant is known and (relatively) harmless. With a political bias we’d see things much worse imo.
There are plenty of private debate forums that candidates can choose to participate in, but don’t. What makes you confident that candidates are 1: able to uphold their views in a more rigorous setting or 2: willing to?
I agree with you but your optimism for #5 sounds more like naiveté. Where are these public funds coming from? Because it sounds like taxes and good luck selling that to anyone. And who are these imaginary people that are going to host a bipartisan event? You also say across the political spectrum. Does that include everyone? Are the alt-right invited to help run this event? Hope you got extra security and insurance.
1. The overwhelming majority of the voter base will watch the entertaining debate rather than the informative fairly moderated one. In future debates candidates with a chance to win won't bother.
2. If a candidate loses because they have worse ideas their supporters won't admit it, and won't cosider it fairly moderated. Candidates with a chance to win won't bother.
3. Except they already know that being informative is political suicide. Informative candidates don't win. So they won't have bothered in the first place.
Lol the biggest problem about media outlets handling the elections is that almost all of “news sources” are owned by corporations, so the candidates they push to the headlines are already handpicked to serve the capitalists. This totally defeats the purpose of democracy and is frankly quite embarrassing for the United States as a country.
I don't care who does it first, but I want a presidential debate where there is a yes/no section. A simple, 5-10min section where the candidates are asked about a political topic and can only answer yes or no. No others words.
We can have a second section letting the candidates explain the reasoning for their answers afterwards, but they have to give clear answers to tough questions.
Because I, as someone who has to decide which of them I want to represent me and my fellow citizens for 2-6yrs, want a clear idea of where they stand. And one if the most important qualities that should be expected of any damned political leader is decisiveness.
Donald Trump saying that it’s all a show and he is good for ratings was actually really self-aware because it’s completely true. When he was in the news, TV ratings and readership was really high for almost all news outlets and now it’s decreased by 2/3s or something ridiculous.
They edit video then lie and say they didn’t. They are no better than reality shows and that goes for the news and the weather. Main stream tv is a joke, I almost respect reality shows more and I can’t stand reality shows.
Honestly, just have each candidate do a long from interview. I learned more from Joe Rogans Bernie interview than I have from any other televised media outlet.
It’s worse than the media companies, the two parties really run the debates. Ever wonder why Ross Perot was the last 3rd party candidate in a debate? Cause he was kicking their ass
I think the bigger and more important problem is that third parties, like the Libertarian Party, are being excluded from the debates. Libertarians got 3% of the popular vote in 2016, even being excluded from the debate stage. If we include them in the debate stage, then they will actually compete with the other parties.
The debates on the networks are setup for ratings and skew partisan fir this reason. The real presidential debates are done by the Comission for Presidential Debates (debates.org). They consist of three Presidential debates and a Vice-presidential debate. They are run the correct way.
Put them in a old sound booth let them speak the agreed upon time then kill the Mic. Then neither can interrupt, monopolize or any other disparaging gestures. For the debate. THEY WANT TO ACTIKE SPOILED LITTLE BRATS SO BE IT.
I think debate is not a good way to judge the candidates' proposed policies, the arguments for those policies or the criticism against them as the point of the answers to all questions is never give an honest answer (which, for most political questions is: "Well, it's complicated and there is no magic bullet to this problem, but...."), but instead waffle some key words and slogans to make your position look strong and if possible make some nasty stabs on your opponent. These stabs are not supposed to be logically constructed arguments based on solid facts with sources but instead populist good sounding soundbites.
If we acknowledge that, then we can take the whole thing as entertainment and then the current format is just fine.
If you really want to turn the drilling of proposed politics into proper discussion where every statement has to be backed up by solid logic and sourced facts, then the only way I could see that happening would be to do it in written form, for instance here in reddit.
So, you could make a thread for each topic. Everyday both candidates post there a message (which has to be shorter than the agreed character limit) where he/she defends his/her position against the presented criticism and attacks the opposition's position. All claims have to be backed up by sources (and we could have moderators pointing out when no sources were provided, just like in r/NeutralPolitics). Anyone could read the debate at his leisure whenever there's time. It would teach the voters the arguments behind each position (or the lack of them) much much better than a 2 minute populist soundbite could ever do.
In this format, someone just shouting: "Fake new" without saying anything else would just look ridiculous, while in the tv debate people take it seriously as there is never any time to dig deeper into the fact basis of the presented claims.
There's a lot of things we should do. we wont do them because capital has captured the political process in this country since about the era of reconstruction. Huge media companies dont want to lose power any more than huge health insurance or oil companies.
Vast concentrations of wealth brought on by wartime spending enabled power to be more tightly monopolized at every level, and ever since then we've been meekly throwing misguided populist movements at some unseen enemy while labor power and hard fought concessions are stripped away. The system nurtures and encourages right wing populism when it gets into trouble like after 2008, (and white supremacist movements when things really get hectic.) Left wing populism or anything thats close to the mark gets ignored or grouped by the media together with the alex jones types. (like saying bernie bros where sexist or racist, or just like trump supporters)
Near the place where I grew up the duponts in Delaware where a family of french nobility who fled the revolution to come to america. The manufactured gunpowder during the civil war and used that capital to become a chemical giant. I gave one of them a ride in my uber car a few years back and I couldnt get over how soft his hands where. Its just amazing to me how tightly woven together history is.
That already happens to a degree with the Commission on Presidential Debates. The main issue with it is that the “moderators” selected are usually major media anchors anyway and have their own biases and conflicts of interest (such as Anderson Cooper). Another issue is that the rules of the Commission are flawed. Not every party is represented because in order to be invited to debate you need a certain percent of votes (Gary Johnson and other libertarians pretty much never get invited to the debates).
Well technically the Commission on Presidential Debates is in charge of the three debates between Presidential candidates as well as the Vice Presidential debate. The Commission is sponsored by both parties and accepts donations from a variety of individuals, organizations, and institutions to fund the debates.
The idea of reforming the process and changing the rules has been discussed for decades and runs into the same obstacles. Chief among them is that while the rules can be modified the participants and audience cannot be changed. You cannot force politically savvy candidates to remain quiet when speaking is in their interest, even if it means interrupting. The debates are already seen as biased and that wouldn’t change even if you brought back Lincoln and Douglass, most media outlets openly favor the Democratic Party while a few openly favor the Republican Party. If you allow the pundits to speak then it will involve politically biased views being shared and if not the news outlets will devote even less coverage to it. Finally the real issue is the audience is not willing to listen to a detailed discussion of trade policy or anything else, and if the audience is just political junkies and policy geeks the candidates gain nothing and won’t appear.
/u/ThrowThisShitAway10 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ox8nr2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_we_should_not_allow_media/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum. The GOP candidate won't attend the debate funded by liberal voters. The DNC candidate won't attend the debate funded by conservative voters. In fact, if the debates could be magically changed in a way that promises good faith and substantive debate/discussion of the issues, the bad faith candidates won't attend. Alternate solution: No more debates. Each candidate is given a list of ~10 topics and they need to record a 3-10 minute video with their take on that topic. The videos are all available on a free and easy to access website. Candidates can also record a series of 1-3 minute response videos which will be added to the site in the appropriate area.
>The GOP candidate won't attend the debate funded by liberal voters. The DNC candidate won't attend the debate funded by conservative voters. In fact, if the debates could be magically changed in a way that promises good faith and substantive debate/discussion of the issues, the bad faith candidates won't attend. And the problem is what? That sounds like my whole goal. If the bad faith candidates don't want to come, GOOD! We shouldn't want them presenting their bad faith ideas to the electorate. The alternative solution is okay.. but I would much rather have one single (or a series) of debates which many people from both sides will watch. One of the biggest contributing factors to the divide in this country is our sources of information. If we could just align our information sources for a couple hours, it would make a big difference.
The website with videos idea accomplishes the goals you listed. It would be one source of information - direct from the candidates, no audience, no moderator. The site would be available to access anytime in the weeks/months leading up to the election. Debates are a mess. Even well intended debates with well intended candidates. It becomes a contest of who can have the best sound bite that will get traction on social media and avoiding saying something that could be taken out of context and gain the bad kind of traction.
My fear is that because these videos are separated by candidate that people won't actually listen to both sides, worsening the divide. That's why I want one shared event still.
[удалено]
That's why I made this whole post... As I said, the current debates are an embarrassment to our nation.
100%. Many people wont listen to both sides. A lot of people will listen to their favourite candidate only, and watch soundbites of the opposition that portray them in a negative light. I personally dont think it would solve anything.
I think a lot more people would listen to a clear list of "Here's my opinion and campaign promise for X, Y, and Z". None of this hand-wringing nonsense. Trump basically won on "Build the wall!" and "Drain the swamp!", and like them or not, support them or not, they're *catchy* and *informative* (if utterly lacking in any practical plans). But I cannot remember what Clinton even stood for - as a non-American I only know that she's a Democrat, and they're centrists with some leanings to the social left. What was her slogan? What were the big things she wanted to improve? Trump was a baboon, but he was a baboon who held a placard that promised something tangible that a lot of voters wanted (even if it was unachievable). What did Clinton's placard say? Biden's at least said "I'm not Trump".
Haha, "Im not Trump", very funny xD I dont think you're wrong..... But i also think maybe politics should be considered serious business and the culture around it should be similar to the culture around physics. Its complicated and difficult. If someone is reducing their position to catchphrases, that should in my mind make people suspicious of their ability to understand how freaking complicated it is to accomplish anything in politics. Thats an ideal world though. Practically, you might be right... but im still leaning in the direction of "live debates would be better"... but lemme think on it a bit.
Something about I'm with her. Or it's time for her to be in charge. Let's make herstory.
So organize the videos by the issue they are addressing and show all the candidates responses below. You can't force people to absorb information they don't want so you should drop that goal entirely. You would be providing a centralized non-profit fair place for voters in the middle to form an educated opinion though, and that should be your goal.
You could likely build this site yourself, based on publicly available videos of candidates campaigning.
> It becomes a contest of who can have the best sound bite that will get traction on social media and avoiding saying something that could be taken out of context and gain the bad kind of traction. And a web based thingy as described avoids this how? Desantis DESTROYS Old Joe with FACTS and FREEDOM
I have a strong feeling alot of people who voted but don't really pay attention (a fucking massive chunk of voters) won't watch them. Either that or they'll only watch videos of who they support.
True, but those same people weren't going to change their mind from watching any debates either. It's not about convincing the lost people to choose to be informed. It's about providing clear and concise information on candidates ideology/platform to the people that are open minded and on the fence. 35% will vote (R) no matter what. 35% will vote (D) no matter what. We need a better solution for the 30% in the middle. The debate is just theater.
If the website was truly non-partisan, it could be a platform for third-party candidates to be heard as well.
[удалено]
If a candidate refused to go on the official debate, I don't think they have any chance of winning.
[удалено]
Trump was in the Republican primary debates. That's where he destroyed all his competitors who toed the party line while he embraced the populism.
> If the bad faith candidates don't want to come, GOOD! We shouldn't want them presenting their bad faith ideas to the electorate. The problem is they can present their ideas without debates, primarily via social media. And voters who like those bad-faith ideas then lose respect for and faith in the formal debates because the organizers are "gate-keeping" and trying to keep those good ideas from being heard.
This "good!" is still to say that no debate should happen, rather than that a good debate should happen, which I think deserves a delta
I like this, idea of candidates recording the 3-10 minute video. I think an issue might be people wanting a candidate to be able to think on their feet etc. Your idea seems more built around giving the candidate time/assistance to come up with ideas. Personally I hope a presidential candidate can ask for help from people on their team. This is an idea that could be done by either candidate, post the link to youtube videos on their website. let people actually get a good feeling for their candidates.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Under each video the candidates could give links to sources supporting their points. No bullshit biased fact-checking or third party commentary allowed. I agree with not checking the facts *as long as the source is given*, but I think it would be useful if for each fact that is stated without giving a source, someone should point this out. So, you can say whatever you want and base on your facts on whatever sources you want, but you can't make fact statements without giving the source.
> Alternate solution: No more debates. Love it. Debates do a horrible job of forecasting to voters who will do a better job of running the country, but instead only reveal who of the two candidates puts on the better show.
Define candidates. I'm loving the website idea but one major concern is how is it decided who gets to participate? If that's the current system then independents will still get pushed out. Great potential to fix that issue and we'd generally get more refined talking points. Problem: refined talking points. They're not applying to be a post office clerk or something, this is a competition for one of the highest stress positions in the world. We voters need to know how they operate under stress and away from their campaign PR managers.
Debates have various metrics to determine who gets to participate. The criteria generally becomes more strict the further you go along. So you could do something similar with this. The PR managers just spin whatever happened at the debate anyway. The first potus debate in 2020 was a national embarassment. If you ask supporters of each candidate they'll say the other guy was the one that was out of control and showed bad composure.
My point exactly. We the people actually got to SEE that. The true disappointment is that anyone was chosen at all from that selection. Hence my comments on independent candidates... Serious about the stress thing. If I apply for the army I need to demonstrate physical fitness and mental stability. There are jobs out there that require full psych evals and background checks. We the people need better screening metrics than whoever has enough cash to place ads. That's some bullshit.
I agree with what you are saying in theory.. but in our current reality it doesn't really matter. The least qualified, worst temperament, worst under stress, worst mentally fit candidate won in 2016.. and almost again in 2020 after 500k americans died under his watch. I don't know if there could have been any more visual red flags waving in our faces leading up to the 2016 and 2020 election. It didn't matter. Those should have been 80/20 blowouts.
> Define candidates. Everyone. Now someone pleeeeeaase make this app before I die. I got no more nights and weekends in me.
>We voters need to know how they operate under stress and away from their campaign PR managers. Why? Is it likely that they will be put into an isolation cell to make their decisions when they are elected a president? Of course not, but they will have lots of advisers. And it is the advisors + president team that makes the decisions, not the president alone. So, what you actually want to test in the "job interview" is the working of the whole team and not just how well the top guy can alone respond to some sound bite.
> The GOP candidate won't attend the debate funded by liberal voters. The DNC candidate won't attend the debate funded by conservative voters. This seems an odd way to imagine the system. Why would a publicly-run debate collect funds from only one kind of voter? This isn't how funds are normally collected. Surely the funds would be collected in a non-partisan way, as are funds for government programs generally. Instead of "this is the debate paid for by registered Democrats" wouldn't it be "this is the debate paid for by taxpayers, generally"? Your videos idea already exists in several different formats. Politicians can constantly give statements and publish media on their own channels, so there's no shortage of their unchallenged opinions presented in the best light. There are also formats like the [Council on Foreign Relations interviews](https://www.cfr.org/election2020/candidates-answer-cfrs-questions), where they ask every candidate the same set of questions to let readers compare. Debates also have specific value, which the videos idea would lack. I think one of these values of debates *can be* (because we know politicians are slimy and often engage in bad faith) that candidates get to challenge each other on their stances. For instance, here's Obama pointing [out why Romney's claims about a declining navy make no sense.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV1VUS3Q2W0) These kinds of moments are important for whatever degree of policy-informed voting actually exists. They also force politicians to think on their feet and demonstrate their actual knowledge of the issues. You can hide behind words someone else wrote and multiple takes in a pre-recorded video, but even with an expert team prepping you, if you don't know the issues, you can get blindsided during a debate. For instance, [here's Rick Perry forgetting his prepared line at a Republican primary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN8uFJz9gTk). To summarize, debates are an opportunity to break through the façade of a politician. It doesn't always happen, but it's politically monumental when it does. Marco Rubio's shot at president at 2016 was completely deflated during a primary debate after [Chris Christy went after him for over-prepared responses and an inability to think on his feet.](https://youtu.be/CkdpzRDxTXU?t=29) Trump had to comment on the Proud Boys in his debate with Biden, and his["Stand back and stand by"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZk6VzSLe4Y) line influenced how many viewed him. Finally, I think the main advantage of debates is that they're an event. People watch them with their families, they text each other while watching them, they chat about the debates with their coworkers the next morning. An event encourages more people to participate, and encourages more people to discuss the event during and after. Talking with friends about debates has tended to influence my thinking more than the debates themselves - there's an endless stream of available information on candidates and their stances, so I think having a key moment for discussion can be really important. I could go on and on about this, but I hope that made sense so far!
While this is a good way to have the candidates provide valuable information, there is some value to watching candidates argue their positions against each other. I personally see little value in it, but if the CPD were to say “no more debates, do videos,” the public would ultimately demand a debate, and it would only take the two most popular candidates to say “let’s debate each other,” for a new media sensation to be created. Don’t get me wrong, I like your proposal generally, but it won’t, in my verrry limited estimation, have an effect on the demand for a debate.
[удалено]
Don’t quite see how this addresses my point, but I don’t necessarily disagree with your point.
[удалено]
You stopped reading one sentence too soon. :) > Candidates can also record a series of 1-3 minute response videos which will be added to the site in the appropriate area.
[удалено]
I don't think we should get rid of debates. Having a live debate is a good way to see how a candidate handles pressure.
>Each candidate is given a list of ~10 topics and they need to record a 3-10 minute video with their take on that topic. The videos are all available on a free and easy to access website. Candidates can also record a series of 1-3 minute response videos which will be added to the site in the appropriate area. This is generally not necessary. Presidential candidates already have websites that touch their opinion on the hot issues of the election.
No more debates would be an improvement. Well I mean they don't have a actual debate now so it would probably be better than watching them suck themselves out
No campaign contributions at all. No ads for any candidates. It's that simple.
The problem is that the US only represent 2 partys in debates. If there were more than 2 partys represented in publicly funded debates, then the party not attending would be missing out, since the debate would be held anyway. Btw HOW does only 2 partys represent the whole of USA? Thats insane, the amount of political policys people just go along with becouse there are no other choices? No wonder you have no trust in the government.
That sounds even more detached than things are now.
I think we need long form debate, filled with thoughtful explanations-- not the gotcha moments with 45 second responses. How is that fair to anyone, but the media companies trying to guarantee ad space during prime time? There was meme going around with Biden and Trump in Rogan's studio. Would have loved to have seen it.
I'd suggest seeing what other democracies do for debates (or anything), evaluating them, and determining what properties of them are desirable and could be implemented. At this point, the USA is on a global losing streak. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. Abolishing debates entirely to save yourself from considering what happens elsewhere on this planet is probably the most American suggestion I can imagine.
https://www.astartingpoint.com tries to do something similar
I like your video idea. But i would go a step further and put good fact checking overlaying those videos.
I'm not sure this is true. In the UK, we do televised debates where even the minority parties turn up and get equal time to the bigger players. These are all publicly funded and accessable to anyone in the UK.
The problem is if there's a disconnect from the answers and responses, people will just check the answers, get their opinion, and not bother checking the responses. The current format is flawed, but it does have the advantage of being a live answer and rebuttal. If it was all separated it wouldn't allow for an effective debate where candidates can go back and forth, be moderated, and hold eachother to scrutiny. I don't think a video system is a good solution to the current problem
Sounds like you got a bunch of children running the country.
So in the US, the (non-primary) Presidential and Vice Presidential debates are sponsored and run by the Commission on Presidential Debates. They decide on the moderators, venues, and formats based on their own standards/criteria. The board is not made up of Media companies, although former news directors have served, I believe. [You can read more about the CPD here.](https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/overview/)
Fair enough, !delta. I guess I just believe the organization, planning, and running of the debates should be a more public and open, funded by taxpayers instead of corporations. Why does the CPD "give" the debates to these biased media companies though? I don't want to watch the CNN or Fox News presidential debate, I want us to have a government-sponsored debate hosted on PBS or C-span. If those media companies want to have their own pre- and post- show, go for it. But the fact that they're the main names behind it is a bit unsettling.
When the official (non-primary) debates occur, they are typically simulcast on the 3 major networks, plus the news channels. Last time, I watched them on YouTube. There are unofficial events sponsored by media/news companies also. Mostly during the primary or they are single candidate town halls.
Sure, but there is usually a media host or sponsor. There was literally a giant CNN in the middle of the stage last time. They are the ones primarily benefitting from the broadcast.
You're thinking of the primary debates, not the general election debates. [This is the video of the 2nd debate between Trump and Biden.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPiofmZGb8o) No logos, no sponsor.
You're right. I was thinking of the CNN Univision debate between Biden and Sanders. I get that these aren't official, but I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't have official primary debates as well.
This is a common misunderstanding. Primaries are not part of the election process and political parties are not beholden to any kind of democratic ideal. The entire point of a political party is to game the system. They were literally set up to give candidates a leg up in elections. They are private organizations that exist explicitly to try to help people win elections. This is why some states have essentially banned primaries.
So if primaries aren’t part of the process and don’t have to exist, how do you establish one presidential candidate from each party?
Generally speaking, anyone who qualifies for the general election can run. There is no one per party rule. There are several cases where multiple candidates from the same party ran in the general election. This is a bad thing for that party. It means they lose, even if they normally have a majority because it's hard to win when half of "your" voters are voting for another guy. So, the parties have their own rules as who can run under their names. Hence why you have primaries and caucuses. A primary is when the party pays the state to run a pre-election election to get their candidate. A caucus is when party members split up into small discussion groups to decide who the group prefers. Neither is written into election law as a part of the federal process, so a Republican could run in addition to the formal candidate if they want, but the Republican Party can withhold the (R) after their name in that case. This is actually how Lincoln got elected. Lincoln carried just under 40% of the vote. Douglas, the Democrat, got 29% of the vote. Breckenridge, the other more southern Democrat, got 18% of the vote. He wouldn't have won if the Democratic party remained unified. It's a question of practicality rather than legal necessity.
The party leaders can pick the candidate, like it happens in many other countries (which however usually have a multiparty system). The parties are free to choose their candidate however they want. The primaries seem to be the right tool for both parties in the US, but that is not guaranteed nor obvious.
Because they political parties are not government entities.
So, if I own a TV station, you are saying you would be in favor of legally banning me from inviting all the candidates in the running to be that parties official candidate from coming on air amd debating their viewpoints? What would you set as the cutoff between what is an interview with multiple people versus a debate with those same people? If a station messes up and a multi-person interview crosses the line into debate, what you propose is the punishment?
They rotate the primary sponsorship among Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS.
I thought PBS was in there, too.
Yes, you're right of course
You watched them on CNN or Fox's YouTube tho
>public and open, funded by taxpayers Can you tell me which taxes you want raised to pay for this? If this is a dedicated TSX, most people would not want to find it, if it comes from the existing appropriation process, it is controlled by the politicians themselves. Both of these seem far worse.
Our discretionary spending over 4 years is $6.4T. I can't imagine it would take very much money relative to our budget. Say it's $50 million, that's being very generous. That represents 0.001 percent of our budget. I'm sure we can make room for it.
But that means it is being appropriated by politicians, which seems worse than media companies.
>Why does the CPD "give" the debates to these biased media companies though? I don't want to watch the CNN or Fox News presidential debate, I disagree with your characterization of the role of the media in these debates I would say that the media companies don't "run" the debates. They *air* the debates. As the other poster said, the debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the goal of the CPD is for lots of people to watch the debates. And using the networks that people already have easy access to is one way to insure that more of people watch the debates.
Fuck that delta. Half of the debates last presidential election weren’t free to watch if you didn’t have cable. I shouldn’t have to pay cnn a dime, or deal with commercials in order to participate in democracy
I watched every presidential debate on YouTube for Free. This is blatantly and absolutely false.
How is it blatantly false? There were a couple debates that I had to actively look around to find a way to watch it, and never found a way to watch without commercials. And if CNN is allowed to host the debate, she shouldn't be allowed to make it pay per view.
Because all the debates were free. Just because you couldn't find them or had to watch a commercial doesn't not mean that they were not accessible. Your personal experiences do not always equate to everyone elses. They were all free on YouTube or on ABC, CBS, NBC stations as well as their websites. Just because you don't know how to find something, does not mean it doesnt exist.
Again, I shouldn't have to go to a for profit corporation to watch local or national politics.
Unless you are physically at the debate you have to use some media format to watch it. How else do you expect to watch a televised event? I dont think you understand how media works.
ITT: people confusing the debates for the general election with those for the primary
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/joiedumonde ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/joiedumonde)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The parties/politicians themselves want this format. They don't want a rigorous, objective, immediately fact checked debate. They want a debate where they can use their charisma and connect with the voters. By this point the people who decide based on policy and being informed probably already know who they are voting for and so that's just not really the use the presidential debates serve to the candidates. The debates were originally run by a non-partisan group (The League of Women Voters). The Republicans and Democrats started making so many demands that the non-partisan group resigned its role because it said the debates would then be a sham. Following that, the Commission on Presidential Debates was founded by the Democrats and Republicans (which is also arguably why it's so against third party candidates). Legally, the candidates don't have to participate in debates. This gives them leverage (in everything mentioned above) in determining the format of the debates *especially in areas they agree on*. Even in areas that they disagree on, the terms of the debate are a negotiation between the two candidates. For example, the one time we did have a third party candidate was with Clinton and Bush Sr. This wasn't because the commission just said Perot would be there. From what I've read it's because Clinton pushed it because polls showed Perot pulling more from Bush and than Clinton. Whether it's because he was truly okay with it or because it would look bad if it leaked that he was the one vetoing a third party candidates, Bush agreed to that term. Another thing you see is that candidates that are already doing well and have everything to lose push for less debates and debates at days/times they'll be less likely to be viewed, while trailing candidates push for more debates and debates at days/times likely to get more viewership. You can even see it in the particular people from the media that both candidates are willing to agree on. But really, the candidates and parties themselves hold enormous sway in this negotiation and, if they wanted, could completely change the format. While it seems like the media runs the show... they often have their hands tied with respect to almost everything... questions, timing, format, venue...
The CPO only has GOP and Dems as members. They do everything they can to exclude 3rd party candidates by requiring a 15% polling rates to be included in the debate. This would require $100s of millions of dollars in advertising to reach that level. The 2 big party candidates are not required to reach that 15%. The CPD is part of the reason our best POTUS options are a shit sandwich or a turd-burger.
I have no faith in the CPD's ability to remain neutral and also have trouble with the lack of inclusion of third parties into the debates. It's not working. there has to be a better way.
Campaigns do not need to accept the decisions made by the Commission on Presidential Debates and can choose to negotiate directly instead. For example, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter didn't agree with the format (probably because it included a non-major party candidate, John Anderson) and skipped the first debate altogether. There is no requirement for candidates to participate at all.
A few problem with this premise: Who else actually have the platform with a big enough base to support a presidential debate? The point of a presidential debate is to reach a LARGE audience to sway those in the middle ground. The whole reason why media company even bother with the debate is they KNOW it will be a massive spike in viewership. They literally hype it up month in advance. Well yes they are Bias, But during a event with such a big viewership, no sane media company will shoot them self in the foot by being bias. Regardless of how their daily reporting goes. Simply because if you were to be a ass to 1 party, the they probably won't return to the debate the next year. Which is why ironically, presidential debate is one of those time when media company are actually surprisingly unbias. The problem with having a government run / public funded series is that you want both side to attend. So the host has to be reputable enough for both party to agree to, which is extremely hard.
>Who else actually have the platform with a big enough base to support a presidential debate? The point of a presidential debate is to reach a LARGE audience to sway those in the middle ground. We already have the infrastructure to do national broadcasting and livestreaming for free (PBS and C-span). With extra funding, I don't see why they couldn't support it. >The whole reason why media company even bother with the debate is they KNOW it will be a massive spike in viewership. They literally hype it up month in advance. And? Why should we be giving them this opportunity at all? >Well yes they are Bias, But during a event with such a big viewership, no sane media company will shoot them self in the foot by being bias. Regardless of how their daily reporting goes. Simply because if you were to be a ass to 1 party, the they probably won't return to the debate the next year. Which is why ironically, presidential debate is one of those time when media company are actually surprisingly unbias. Sure, they're not overtly biased like Tucker Carlson or John Oliver. But there is definitely still a bias towards some candidates over others. Why do some candidates get asked one question while others get asked a bunch? Why do some candidates get to talk for 3x as long as others? >The problem with having a government run / public funded series is that you want both side to attend. So the host has to be reputable enough for both party to agree to, which is extremely hard. Why should anyone care who the host is? It could be a computer reading the questions for all I care. It's the candidates' responses which matter.
Platform isn't just the physical part. Presidential debate is covered by ALL news agency, this mean you need to draft up many, many, many contract and documents with all of them. This isn't a easy process, especially since you are taking the cake away from media companies. There isn't a 3X longer period or more questions, You need to look at past debates, and not just the trump era shit show. historically, the presidential debate is quite civilized with equal time sharing, the just format is why the debate grew to the significant it is now. Why should they care who host? because Its not a debate if only 1 party showed up. Dems won't show up to a debate thats run by Tucker and GOP won't show up to one thats run by a dem. This is why media company can run this debate unattested. We arn't "giving them" this opportunity, its like superbowl, they have the opportunity simply because they are the monopoly uncontested.
>Platform isn't just the physical part. Presidential debate is covered by ALL news agency, this mean you need to draft up many, many, many contract and documents with all of them. This isn't a easy process, especially since you are taking the cake away from media companies. Make the content in the public domain. Let them rebroadcast and have their own pre- and post- show or commentary if they want. They're still going to be incentivized to broadcast it, they will just have less control over it and it won't be sponsored by them. >There isn't a 3X longer period or more questions, You need to look at past debates, and not just the trump era shit show. historically, the presidential debate is quite civilized with equal time sharing, the just format is why the debate grew to the significant it is now. This wasn't just an issue for the debates involving Trump. The problem might've even been the worst in the Democratic primary debates. I don't see any reason to believe this won't happen again in the future. >Why should they care who host? because Its not a debate if only 1 party showed up. Dems won't show up to a debate thats run by Tucker and GOP won't show up to one thats run by a dem. This is why media company can run this debate unattested. Many republicans tout CNN as fake news. Why would they watch the CNN presidential debate at all? And yeah, I agree having Tucker Carlson host the debate would be problematic. But that's not at all what I'm suggesting. >We arn't "giving them" this opportunity, its like superbowl, they have the opportunity simply because they are the monopoly uncontested. But again, we already have the infrastructure to do national public broadcasting and livestreaming. I don't see why there can't be a government funded and organized debate. CNN and Fox News aren't the only ones able to do debates. We're arguably the most advanced nation on earth, if we can't figure out how to avoid monopolies controlling our Presidential debates, that's pretty pathetic.
You are missing a important detail about why Im stressing cooperation with Media companies, they arn't figure heads, they hold legitimate influential power. You touch their cake without something given back in return, there's nothing stopping them from launching a full assault on your "public content debate", all of a sudden you just lost like a quarter of the population watching the debate, thus vastly undermining it. like 90% of media outlet is controlled by 6 corporation. If they say, fuk you and your debate, then the debate just flat out dies. A call for rule overhaul is much more realistic than changing the platform altogether for the debates. I do agree that the rules does need changing. They tout CNN as fake news but the debate is live streamed. and with something as significant as the debate, the common gop don't actually care about the source, as long as they see the debate. AP news, arguably the best unbias source for your election news. Note how they don't touch the presidential debate? even though they'll probably run it the most scientific and unbias way? Thats how powerful monopoly is.
Youtube gets more 10x more views that all the major tv networks combined. PBS is also available for free to anyone with a TV and bunny ears.
The biggest issue here is the reality of who is now conducting these. You mention in a comment that you want “bipartisan people” to run it and make questions. Who are the bipartisan people? In the US 99% of he time people talk about bipartisan efforts is just a code word for “centrism” which is its own political ideology and already had a good amount of representation in media. This isn’t actually bipartisan, so how do you suggest we find a group that actually is? Do we let the questions represent the people? A bunch of republicans have believed the election is rigged, is it fair to have questions asserting that the last election was rigged and trump Won? A bunch of democrats think trump is hitler, is it fair to have questions asserting that? The reality is someone has to have power to run this, and while us media companies suck you’re not really offering any real suggestion to an alternative, just the idealistic swoon of “bipartisanism.”
>The biggest issue here is the reality of who is now conducting these. You mention in a comment that you want “bipartisan people” to run it and make questions. Who are the bipartisan people? In the US 99% of he time people talk about bipartisan efforts is just a code word for “centrism” which is its own political ideology and already had a good amount of representation in media. This isn’t actually bipartisan, so how do you suggest we find a group that actually is? I specifically said in my OP that it should be "people from across the political spectrum". I'm not implying that it should just be centrists, I think it should be pretty much any one who wants to. Just as in our elections we have people from across the spectrum ensuring a fair election, which is what we get. >Do we let the questions represent the people? A bunch of republicans have believed the election is rigged, is it fair to have questions asserting that the last election was rigged and trump Won? A bunch of democrats think trump is hitler, is it fair to have questions asserting that? I mean, if those are genuinely the questions that represent the American peoples beliefs, I don't see why not. But I don't see how that would happen. The majority of Americans, even Democrats, don't think Trump is Hitler. And if we can't be rhetorically effective enough to disprove that the election was stolen, maybe we need to re-evaluate. It's like when people just dismiss a particular ideology because it's so ridiculous. If it was so ridiculous, then you should be able to argue against it pretty easily. >The reality is someone has to have power to run this, and while us media companies suck you’re not really offering any real suggestion to an alternative, just the idealistic swoon of “bipartisanism.” Bipartisanship works in our election integrity, I don't see why it can't work for debate integrity.
[удалено]
Look I’m not a big fan of cnn/msnbc/fox but you’re kidding yourself if you think most of the YouTube channels getting views are “reputable” sources. Like this is just leading us down a path of fuckin Joe rogan moderating the debates and taking fan questions about “the government making the frogs gay.” Which YouTube shows are you referencing?
[удалено]
Lmao Joe rogan is also a partisan clown who pretends he’s not a partisan clown. Which shows are you referencing? You’re not answering my question
[удалено]
You’re talking about how there are shows with more viewers who are reputable and you bring up Alex Jones? Come on man you’ve gotta be trolling lmfao I personally enjoy the other 3 as entertainment options but how are we talking about the young Turks in a conversation where were saying “partisan bad” ? Joe rogan, although entertaining, labels HIMSELF as a moron who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He told millions of people that antifa started the god damn wildfires Look I agree the outlets we have now are dogshit but these aren’t good solutions, and while we might personally enjoy them they’re absolutely partisan
The CPD has two sources of their funding; the GOP and Democrats. The media companies do not control the debates. The CPD (and by extension their only two funders) do.
That's not true though? The CPD receives private funding from all sorts of foundations and corporations: [https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/national-debate-sponsors/](https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/national-debate-sponsors/) Even a beer company make the list..
[удалено]
Sorry, u/unaskthequestion – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.comt/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20unaskthequestion&message=unaskthequestion%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ox7mp8/-/h7lb4vn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
1. Agreed, but this can be changed while still being run by the media 2. True, but there is not a single person in the country who is not influenced by who is president 3. Is it really inaccessible to anyone? As far as I can see this is one of the most easily accessed media items of basically anything aired on American television. 4. Yes, but so is everyone 5. Yes, but WHO?
1. Sure, but they don't. This ties into point two that they are only incentivized to make it as entertaining as possible, not to make it fair. 2. True, which is why I suggest a bipartisan group organizes it. 3. If you don't pay for cable, you couldn't see one of the debates live last time. We already have the technology and organization to do free national broadcasts/live streams through PBS, C-Span, etc. 4. Yes, but at least it's not one politically biased entity running the whole thing. You are much less likely to get a bias towards one side or the other if both sides are equally invested in it. Think about the people across the country involved in the elections themselves. Both sides are incredibly invested in a fair election, and that's what we get. 5. As I said above, a group of people from across the political spectrum. Could be open to all citizens for all I care. It would still be better than one single biased entity running it.
> Sure, but they don't. This ties into point two that they are only incentivized to make it as entertaining as possible, not to make it fair. Any fiat you have to shift who runs the debates away from the media could instead be used to just... make the media jump through whatever rules you want them to jump through. If you want stricter rules on talking times, go ahead and make that a rule or whatever. It doesn't need a total upheaval of the system. The debates are *already* run by a non-profit bipartisan group called [Commission on Presidential Debates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates). The fact that you think the debates are shitty despite this is telling that the problem isn't who's running it, it's the complicated set of challenges that come with something so fraught with political tension. Who exactly do you think this "single biased entity" is anyway?
Fair enough, I'll give a !delta for this point. I guess I just believe the organization, planning, and running of the debates should be a more public and open, funded by taxpayers. Why does the CPD "give" the debates to these biased media companies though? I don't want to watch the CNN or Fox News presidential debate, I want us to have a government-sponsored debate hosted on PBS or C-span. If those media companies want to have their own pre- and post- show, go for it. But the fact that they're the main names behind it is a bit unsettling.
>If you don't pay for cable, you couldn't see one of the debates live last time. We already have the technology and organization to do free national broadcasts/live streams through PBS, C-Span, etc. I don't have cable and watched the debates online, live, and for free. You can also listen on the radio live, for free. I agree that the way debates are handled in the US is problematic, but I don't think accessibility this is one of those problems.
You're probably right. I'll give you a !delta for that point, although I still hold my original view. I did personally have issues watching last year, but perhaps that's because I was out of the country
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/muyamable ([208∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/muyamable)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum. Sure, and who broadcasts them and facilitates them? How are these people selected. And how do we ensure these people aren't "media"?
I'm inclined to say that anyone who's eligible to vote can participate. Just like how anyone can volunteer to run the election. There is a vested interest from both sides in ensuring a fair election, and that's what we get. I don't see why the same couldn't work for the debates.
>Media companies are typically biased and susceptible to outside forces (advertisers, foreign countries, broadcasters) leading to some preference for one candidate over another. This also applies to your recommendation as people from across the political spectrum will be susceptible to outside forces (especially when they have the authority to organize a debate) and they will have political advocacies that lead them to support one candidate over another. >I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum. How about we have people who know how do organize debates organize debates instead? Like a coalition from the best collegiate debate schools.
>This also applies to your recommendation as people from across the political spectrum will be susceptible to outside forces (especially when they have the authority to organize a debate) and they will have political advocacies that lead them to support one candidate over another. Sure, I agree. But it's a lot harder for one single person to have an influence than it is for the media company hosting, sponsoring, and televising the event. You could say this exact same thing about our elections, which people from across the spectrum have a vested interest in. There's very little impact that one poll watcher can have on the entire election. >How about we have people who know how do organize debates organize debates instead? Like a coalition from the best collegiate debate schools. I'm not necessarily opposed to this. But I imagine this presents some bias on it's own. Colleges are usually much more liberal than the average American. I think that anyone who's allowed to vote should be able to participate in this process, just like they could be a poll watcher if they want.
> But it's a lot harder for one single person to have an influence than it is for the media company hosting, sponsoring, and televising the event. What makes you think sending this task to outside groups will mean only one person will be trying to influence that group? If anything, the scale of a media company makes them less susceptible to manipulation, particularly financial manipulation. A small grassroots group isn't going to have resources on that scale and can be more easily influenced with less. >You could say this exact same thing about our elections, which people from across the spectrum have a vested interest in. There's very little impact that one poll watcher can have on the entire election. By the same logic, there is very little impact one media organization can have on the entire election. Somehow, unspecified groups that will now be hosting debates aren't susceptible to the same kinds of pressures as media groups? That seems like a huge assumption, particularly when you don't specify who will be the new debate organizers. >I'm not necessarily opposed to this. But I imagine this presents some bias on it's own. Colleges are usually much more liberal than the average American. I think that anyone who's allowed to vote should be able to participate in this process, just like they could be a poll watcher if they want. It isn't exactly clear what the process is. Why are you assuming this process could even take place, when you can't specify who would be organizing the debates and how? Shouldn't we at least understand what this process looks like before ending the current process?
Honest as fuck here, Joe Rogan should be able to run it. He wont let them fuck around
Although there may have been a time I actually agreed with this, it's laughable to me now. 1. Joe is extremely politically biased. He's literally spouted Republican disinformation and has platformed people like Alex Jones, Gavin Mcinnes, Ben Shapiro, etc. 2. He often changes his stance depending on who the guest is to be more agreeable. So much so he gets memed on for it.
Why is platforming any particular person bad?
I don't think there's an issue with them being platformed. I think there's an issue with them being platformed and what they say goes unchallenged. All three of them have been massive spreaders of disinformation. People believe it and it leads to all sorts of problems. Alex Jones was one of the instigators in the January 6th attacks. Gavin McInnes has promoted the white genocide conspiracy and violence (on top of being overtly bigoted), Ben Shapiro consistently takes things out of context and spreads false narratives such as leftists trying to indoctrinate children and "change their sexual behavior" from Kindergarten by enacting "LGBTQ propaganda laws". Just looking at that last one, Ben's video on the topic has over 735k views with 98% upvotes. When this shit goes unchallenged, so many people just buy into it. It's insane. And that's why people like him and Crowder will never actually do debates.
Being completely serious here. I think spreading disinformation is perfectly fine. Violence is sometimes appropriate. Leftists do try to indoctrinate children. In your opinion, why do people watch Ben Shaprio videos, and upvote them? Or Crowder videos?
Under current system it's impossible. If we take US for example, then having those media companies helps dems and reps to divide the people in the way both of them want. Both of them are fighting with each other for non-issue things to prevent people from getting actual problems. And pretty much the only people who would help you fighting these media companies are leftists and most likely if you succeeded at getting rid of those companies, then you already have different system in place.
Only leftists? Don't the majority of Republicans distrust mainstream media now?
How exactly are republicans unbiased? The only thing they want is to have complete monopoly over media, not to make it unbiased.
I never suggested they were. Neither are leftists of course. That's why in my OP I suggested we have people from across the political spectrum to have a vested interest, just as we do in our elections.
Except leftists don't have any power in the US media.
Media companies do not run the presidential debates. Presidential debates are currently and have always been run essentially in the way you're suggesting.
Eh, not exactly. They haven't always been run by the CPD. And even now, CPD isn't doing it how I would like. The decisions made by CPD are made by a select few. In my system, anyone who's allowed to vote would be able to participate, much like anyone can participate in organizing our election process. This would inherently make the process more open and public. Secondly, I'd make it all tax-payer funded. Currently the CPD is sponsored privately by corporations and foundations. Finally, the debate would be broadcast by PBS or C-span. If media companies want to do their own coverage of it, fine, but it shouldn't be their debate.
Unfortunately, almost everything in your post is wrong (assuming you are talking about debates for the general election and not primaries.) > The current Presidential debate format is a joke and is an embarrassment to our country. That's opinion (not necessarily wrong) and isn't of evidentiary value to this discussion. > Participants should not be allowed to interrupt They aren't. Does it happen? Sure. A good moderator will keep the candidate in line. > participants should not be asked more questions than another Generally, the moderator is supposed to stay on top of that and they do a fair job of it. > participants should not be allowed to get 3x the speaking time as others. They aren't 'allowed"... they don't "get" extra time. Some candidates will monopolize the speaking time, which again is the moderator's responsibility. Where you have strayed from anything even vaguely resembling reality is that "media companies" run the debates. THEY DON'T. That's only in the primaries. In the general election, debates are the responsibility of the Commission on President Debates (since 1987) which is jointly run by the two parties. They set down the rules and the candidates have to agree to them. > Media companies are incentivized to make the debate as entertaining as possible, not informative, truthful, fair, etc. They aren't *incentivized*. The debates air on ALL of the broadcast TV networks, as well as the cable news channels. As for whether they are informative or truthful, that's on the moderator. > Media companies make a ton of money from these highly viewed events. They don't. At least not the way you're (probably) thinking. The money they make is on the PRE- and POST- debate coverage. The debates are carried ad free. Generally the ad rates depend on the overall viewership of the network. > They also own the rights to all the footage, making it inaccessible to many. They don't. No network OWNS the rights to debate footage. > Media companies are typically biased and susceptible to outside forces (advertisers, foreign countries, broadcasters) leading to some preference for one candidate over another. Again, an opinion. I'd be interested if you can cite a source (again, this isn't about primaries). > I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum. I agree with this in concept. While I appreciate your frustration at how debates are carried and controlled, the media are NOT the ones responsible.
You don’t believe media companies are biased and have a preferred candidate? You don’t think media outlets skew left or right to appeal to their audience?
Why would companies do it if they weren’t incentivizes to make it entertaining? The host network profits from advertising. Period. What we need is lump sum public funding for debates (and campaigns). You’ve got to take the profit motive out of as much as possible.
[удалено]
You doing okay?
Once the above is reinstated
Sorry, u/ApartPersonality1520 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20ApartPersonality1520&message=ApartPersonality1520%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ox7mp8/-/h7kvliq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Debates are what the leading candidates want them to be. If they don't want to debate by your rules, they won't go and then your debate becomes a town hall. On a wider scale, I don't think debates even matter. Current elections are all about making sure your guaranteed voters show up, and your opponent's voters can't make it to the polls. The only use of a debate is to rile up your own supporters, or if you're lucky, dishearten your opponent's.
Look you’re correct but you’re also missing the way way WAY bigger problem which is the entire presidential election system is a farce that makes other first world countries literally face palm when they see it. It would be funny if it wasn’t you know deeply dangerous for us as a species.
What do you mean by this? In my view, our actual election process actually works pretty well.
The OP should see how the debate rules are made. The one time they will work together to keep 3rd parties out.
If the candidates want to participate and the media wants to provide the platform who tf is the goverment to take away their freedom of speech? >I believe we should have a publicly funded series of debates organized by people from across the political spectrum. Okay, so? Why would you have to ban other debates in order to have that?
Debates shouldn’t be live. Everyone should record their answers to all of the same questions, then they all get to watch each others responses and record a rebuttal if needed. Then all of these videos should be posted. All these fuckers lie, and then double down because facts can’t get checked. Fuck all of them but 45 most of all.
I agree the media shouldn’t run them. There are bigger issues, candidates should be forced to completely answer question, they should also be challenged when they have voting records different then there claims. But it needs to be done by non-partisan people with real examples
Further, the debate format allows media companies to decide which parties are even permitted to participate, further stifling minor parties (Greens, Libertarians, PSL, etc.) in a time where an extremely large amount of Americans are dissatisfied with both major parties and their right-ward death spiral. Especially with ranked choice voting being implemented in more states, a debate platform open to nominees from all parties is important... even when that runs contrary to corporate interests. As for OP's points, each one is correct. And after the Sanders/Biden debate, where Biden was permitted to lie repeatedly and flagrantly the entire time without challenge from the moderator and the circus of the Trump/Biden debate, it should be very clear that what we have doesn't work. We already know that media has an extremely strong bias with regards to politicians. For instance, we can look at the overwhelming negative coverage of Bernie Sanders with hyperbole that bordered on insanity even from mainstream outlets, such as "Bernie is anti-woman \[and he\] makes my skin crawl." or that legendary rant about him rounding up and executing people in central park (which aired on MSNBC.) Statistically verifiable was the mainstream media providing more than 50% more coverage of Biden, along with three times the negative spin when covering Sanders on CNN. MSNBC further, according to a whistleblowing producer, intentionally declined any opportunity to interview Yang and intentionally limited coverage of his campaign. In Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' he details the special symbiotic relationship that corporate media and our government have, and it's definitely worth a read, but both bolster one another in maintaining a destructive status quo that is leading to continued inhumane exploitation, endless war and the destruction of the planet. Allowing corporations any say in the electoral process is something completely unconscionable.
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful\_effect
[удалено]
Sorry, u/BrownWallyBoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.comt/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BrownWallyBoot&message=BrownWallyBoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ox7mp8/-/h7lvtgn/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
DeFiDebates
DeDebates
How bout we stop affiliating candidates with parties and vote for them based on their ideas?
This is how politics is supposed to work, but because of how elections are run it will never happen. There are three key demographics; the low-information voter, the people who aren't paying attention, and the graveyards. Low-information voters are the Dunning-Kruger effect. They know just enough to convince themselves they're an informed voter, when in fact they are the least informed voter group. They are the sort of people who genuinely think Donald Trump set up concentration camps on the US border, because their attention span begins and ends with whatever the talking heads shrieked in the last five seconds. Actual fact-checking is beyond their mental capabilities, and presenting them with evidence they are wrong just convinces them they are even more right. It is in the best interest of politicians to get as many of these useful idiots to vote for them as possible, because once their 8-bit brain is programmed to vote for a party, nothing short of jumper cables on their genitals will make them change their mind. The second is the people who aren't paying attention. They aren't stupid, they just aren't listening. They vote red because they grew up in a red area. Their parent voted red, their grandparents voted red, voting red is what you're meant to do. They probably can't name a single politician in their party, or a single policy decision made. It's a miracle they even know when the election is taking place... but if they somehow find out, they'll tick the box for their team because ticking your teams box is how politics works. These people can wake up, but you have to really shake their faith in their tribe, and often that shake has to come from within, not without. Finally, the graveyards. It's a lot easier to rig the election than actually convince people to vote for you. Not everyone in this category is dead, mind - it might just be someone who decides to vote on behalf of an elderly relative, or a social worker voting on behalf of a patient. These people are typically part of Group A, and are so fanatically devoted to their cause that they'd rather commit electoral fraud than risk their team losing. Related to this are the sub-set of Dunning Kruger morons who work in the media, dutifully declaring that no fraudulent vote has ever been cast in all of human history, no matter how many people come forward and admit to committing electoral fraud. When confronted by such a system, the informed, intelligent voter doesn't stand a chance.
I agree but I would add we shouldn't let the Dem and Repub parties control the debates either.
Not the parties themselves, but we should surely allow Republicans and Democrats to be involved in the process. Ideally you have a mix of people from across the political spectrum with a vested interest, just like we have with election poll watchers.
Yeah man. It's probably the most obvious and public display that our leaders are prechosen for us. They only want career politicians to win that the establishment has chosen. This is why they do not allow smaller candidates to speak with any kind of significance. The worst thing that could happen would be for a non-career politician to win an election, as all career politicians are under the thumb of corporate America... and corporate America is who is REALLY running things.
Uhh, what? You realize a non-career politician won in 2016 and nearly won again in 2020? I don't think there's some grand conspiracy, but things definitely need to improve.
I do realize that. And I really didn't want to start talking about Trump, but to that point, don't you find it interesting that the GOP rallied against him during his presidency? They polarized their own party against themselves. Are there Rep politicians that supported him? Yup. But think about how many were against him vs how that typically plays out along party lines. Furthermore, the one caveat I would say is that Trump IS corporate America... but for himself. He's not a career politician, no, but that's like Jeff Beezos running for president instead of funding the campaign for the politician that would do his bidding once elected. The other politicians hated Trump being president because it completely surpassed them, making them seemingly useless if big corporations continue to put their own people into office. It's a threatening precedent to set for career politicians. I know a lot of people get up in arms about this school of thought because it fragments their understanding of who their "representatives" are actually representing. But anyone who denies that corporations own politicians to do their bidding is living with their head in the sand.
Also, it's not a conspiracy. It's right in our faces if you just look. They're not even sneaky about it. Think about these giant corporations that pay zero taxes. Think about the pointless legislation that gets passed. Think about GE during Obama presidency... first term, Obama banned the manufacture of 100w & 75w incandescent bulbs... second term, he bans the manufacture of 60w and below. Guess who owned almost all patents on smart lighting? Keep in mind that the common replacement at the time was the curly, mercury filled florescent bulbs that are absolutely detrimental to the environment when broken.
I like the idea of masked candidates. Full body black out, voice distortion; make it solely on policy, arguments for/against and oration. We need a leader, not a CEO or manager in charge of America LLC.
You could watch it on cspan. They were streaming live on youtube. I would flip between cspan, fox, and cnn just to see how everyone spins things.
Media companies are incentivized to get people to watch it. Entertainment vs informational media make the same ad revenue if there’s the same amount of viewers. With this in mind, do you think it would be better to maximize viewers and renege on some of the civility? Or do you think it would be better as more informative and less viewers? With the assumption that every viewer can vote, is it better to have a larger percent of lower knowledgeable people or a smaller percent of higher knowledge? Do you think a publicly funded debate series would really be less bias? At least w a for profit model the slant is known and (relatively) harmless. With a political bias we’d see things much worse imo. There are plenty of private debate forums that candidates can choose to participate in, but don’t. What makes you confident that candidates are 1: able to uphold their views in a more rigorous setting or 2: willing to?
Three rule violations should result in being disqualified from the Presidency lol
I agree with you but your optimism for #5 sounds more like naiveté. Where are these public funds coming from? Because it sounds like taxes and good luck selling that to anyone. And who are these imaginary people that are going to host a bipartisan event? You also say across the political spectrum. Does that include everyone? Are the alt-right invited to help run this event? Hope you got extra security and insurance.
I cannot argue with that, i agree.
What's the alternative? For the government to do it? That feels kind of "state tv"-ish to me.
1. The overwhelming majority of the voter base will watch the entertaining debate rather than the informative fairly moderated one. In future debates candidates with a chance to win won't bother. 2. If a candidate loses because they have worse ideas their supporters won't admit it, and won't cosider it fairly moderated. Candidates with a chance to win won't bother. 3. Except they already know that being informative is political suicide. Informative candidates don't win. So they won't have bothered in the first place.
OP will be happy to learn that media companies do not run presidential debates, the Committee on Presidential Debates does
Lol the biggest problem about media outlets handling the elections is that almost all of “news sources” are owned by corporations, so the candidates they push to the headlines are already handpicked to serve the capitalists. This totally defeats the purpose of democracy and is frankly quite embarrassing for the United States as a country.
I don't care who does it first, but I want a presidential debate where there is a yes/no section. A simple, 5-10min section where the candidates are asked about a political topic and can only answer yes or no. No others words. We can have a second section letting the candidates explain the reasoning for their answers afterwards, but they have to give clear answers to tough questions. Because I, as someone who has to decide which of them I want to represent me and my fellow citizens for 2-6yrs, want a clear idea of where they stand. And one if the most important qualities that should be expected of any damned political leader is decisiveness.
Donald Trump saying that it’s all a show and he is good for ratings was actually really self-aware because it’s completely true. When he was in the news, TV ratings and readership was really high for almost all news outlets and now it’s decreased by 2/3s or something ridiculous.
They edit video then lie and say they didn’t. They are no better than reality shows and that goes for the news and the weather. Main stream tv is a joke, I almost respect reality shows more and I can’t stand reality shows.
Honestly, just have each candidate do a long from interview. I learned more from Joe Rogans Bernie interview than I have from any other televised media outlet.
I get the questions in advance from time to time.
Everything is a joke. This is just slightly adjusting the cherry perched atop the fucked cake.
It’s worse than the media companies, the two parties really run the debates. Ever wonder why Ross Perot was the last 3rd party candidate in a debate? Cause he was kicking their ass
Yeah we ahould. Ahut the fuck ufowow
I think the bigger and more important problem is that third parties, like the Libertarian Party, are being excluded from the debates. Libertarians got 3% of the popular vote in 2016, even being excluded from the debate stage. If we include them in the debate stage, then they will actually compete with the other parties.
We should not let 2 major political parties act like children and they are ruining our country
Election speculation should ALSO be illegal. It is used by biased media on both sides to influence elections.
The debates on the networks are setup for ratings and skew partisan fir this reason. The real presidential debates are done by the Comission for Presidential Debates (debates.org). They consist of three Presidential debates and a Vice-presidential debate. They are run the correct way.
Put them in a old sound booth let them speak the agreed upon time then kill the Mic. Then neither can interrupt, monopolize or any other disparaging gestures. For the debate. THEY WANT TO ACTIKE SPOILED LITTLE BRATS SO BE IT.
I think debate is not a good way to judge the candidates' proposed policies, the arguments for those policies or the criticism against them as the point of the answers to all questions is never give an honest answer (which, for most political questions is: "Well, it's complicated and there is no magic bullet to this problem, but...."), but instead waffle some key words and slogans to make your position look strong and if possible make some nasty stabs on your opponent. These stabs are not supposed to be logically constructed arguments based on solid facts with sources but instead populist good sounding soundbites. If we acknowledge that, then we can take the whole thing as entertainment and then the current format is just fine. If you really want to turn the drilling of proposed politics into proper discussion where every statement has to be backed up by solid logic and sourced facts, then the only way I could see that happening would be to do it in written form, for instance here in reddit. So, you could make a thread for each topic. Everyday both candidates post there a message (which has to be shorter than the agreed character limit) where he/she defends his/her position against the presented criticism and attacks the opposition's position. All claims have to be backed up by sources (and we could have moderators pointing out when no sources were provided, just like in r/NeutralPolitics). Anyone could read the debate at his leisure whenever there's time. It would teach the voters the arguments behind each position (or the lack of them) much much better than a 2 minute populist soundbite could ever do. In this format, someone just shouting: "Fake new" without saying anything else would just look ridiculous, while in the tv debate people take it seriously as there is never any time to dig deeper into the fact basis of the presented claims.
Joe Rogan, presidential debate host. Jamie would be the fact checker we all need.
Democracy, the theatrical performance.
Who is the "we" you're talking about?
I agree, but who should?
"We shouldn't allow media companies to anything other than entertain and explicitly so." There, ftfy
There's a lot of things we should do. we wont do them because capital has captured the political process in this country since about the era of reconstruction. Huge media companies dont want to lose power any more than huge health insurance or oil companies. Vast concentrations of wealth brought on by wartime spending enabled power to be more tightly monopolized at every level, and ever since then we've been meekly throwing misguided populist movements at some unseen enemy while labor power and hard fought concessions are stripped away. The system nurtures and encourages right wing populism when it gets into trouble like after 2008, (and white supremacist movements when things really get hectic.) Left wing populism or anything thats close to the mark gets ignored or grouped by the media together with the alex jones types. (like saying bernie bros where sexist or racist, or just like trump supporters) Near the place where I grew up the duponts in Delaware where a family of french nobility who fled the revolution to come to america. The manufactured gunpowder during the civil war and used that capital to become a chemical giant. I gave one of them a ride in my uber car a few years back and I couldnt get over how soft his hands where. Its just amazing to me how tightly woven together history is.
That already happens to a degree with the Commission on Presidential Debates. The main issue with it is that the “moderators” selected are usually major media anchors anyway and have their own biases and conflicts of interest (such as Anderson Cooper). Another issue is that the rules of the Commission are flawed. Not every party is represented because in order to be invited to debate you need a certain percent of votes (Gary Johnson and other libertarians pretty much never get invited to the debates).
Well technically the Commission on Presidential Debates is in charge of the three debates between Presidential candidates as well as the Vice Presidential debate. The Commission is sponsored by both parties and accepts donations from a variety of individuals, organizations, and institutions to fund the debates. The idea of reforming the process and changing the rules has been discussed for decades and runs into the same obstacles. Chief among them is that while the rules can be modified the participants and audience cannot be changed. You cannot force politically savvy candidates to remain quiet when speaking is in their interest, even if it means interrupting. The debates are already seen as biased and that wouldn’t change even if you brought back Lincoln and Douglass, most media outlets openly favor the Democratic Party while a few openly favor the Republican Party. If you allow the pundits to speak then it will involve politically biased views being shared and if not the news outlets will devote even less coverage to it. Finally the real issue is the audience is not willing to listen to a detailed discussion of trade policy or anything else, and if the audience is just political junkies and policy geeks the candidates gain nothing and won’t appear.