On June 2, the Republican National Committee released the rules for inclusion in the 2024 presidential primary debates that are sponsored by the party. The polling requirement is 1%, which is quite a contrast to the Commission on Presidential Debates’ 15% polling requirement. See this story. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/02/republican-national-committee-debate-criteria-00099947
1 PCT POLL + 40,000 DONORS
PART OF THE PREZ/VP EC ROT
—
APPV – NONP EXECS/JUDICS – PENDING CONDORCET
The party insider delegates in the 2012 Convention Rules Meeting argued against having a polling requirement.
How about being fair and go one step further in this country and allow all presidential candidates from different political parties debate each other on national tv. Let’s see how the major parties do up against the minor party candidate’s.
National tv is increasingly not a thing. Broadcast tv relies on cable and satellite systems for viewership and various streaming and internet services are increasingly displacing the cable systems. Are you proposing some sort of government mandate to force …what exactly? Please describe exactly how this would work in terms of sling, YouTube / YouTube t.v., and the myriads of other ways in which people consume things somewhat akin to what was national TV now.
Conversely, who isn’t allowing all those candidates to debate each other now, or any type of platforms from carrying such debates if they take place? And what role do you see government playing in organizing, setting criteria or rules for, or paying for or mandating the dissemination or viewership of such debates?
What do you mean by all candidates, incidentally? The hundreds or perhaps thousands who file the FEC candidate form? The untold thousands of others who would if something like this was mandated?
THANKS TO SCOTUS PARTY HACKS THE USA HAS DEFACTO DEGENERATED INTO A LAWLESS KILLER TYRANT MONARCHY —
ESP WITH UNDECLARED WARS BY KILLER PREZS [SUBVERTING 1-8-11 ] – ESP SINCE 1950 KOREAN W-A-R – SO CALLED *POLICE ACTION*
— ALSO PREZ LEGISLATIVE EXEC ORDERS [SUBVERTING 1-1 ] / PREZ EXEC AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN MONARCHS [SUBVERTING TREATY CLAUSE 2-2-2].
MANY VOTERS IN USA NOW ONLY VOTE IN PREZ 12 AMDT EC GERRYMANDER ELECTIONS – SINCE ALL OTHER STUFF IS QUITE USELESS.
END THE TYRANT R-O-T.
P-A-T
Definitions are important. Presidents are not monarchs. They are hampered by division of power, the institutional power of unelected bureaucrats and manipulated public opinion, the necessity to maintain popularity so as to get elected again or hand off power to a successor relatively more than relatively less to their liking, concerns about their relative place in the judgement of history, the need to please existing and potential campaign donors and various competing interest groups and issue coalitions, competition against foreign leaders, courts ruling their policies unconstitutional, the judgement of the business community, economic conveniences of their decisions, etc.
Their power is temporary, limited, and far from absolute. They have a limited amount of time to try to enact an agenda over numerous forms of impediments. If they tick off enough powers that be or engage in sufficient proven criminality and corruption they can be impeached and removed from office, possibly face criminal trials afterwards, made national and international laughing stocks and pariahs, etc. They have limited influence over who follows them in office. There is a lot of competing authority at local, state, and nowadays even international levels.
Then there are simply objectively false claims that a significant portion of those voting for president do not vote for any other office. At least, that seems to be the implied claim, although “many” is a weasel word when you are discussing 9 digit numbers in voting.
Human scale is, again, of utmost importance. Tradition and the importance of not having government too complex and too involved in too many things that are better handled in other ways is far too undervalued. The personal accountability of all political decision-makers would be a big plus, logically. The negative consequences of allowing rampant criminality and population replacement have to be considered very carefully.
It’s too bad that few people, even here, are both willing and able to consider all such matters logically and with a relatively open mind that they could be wrong. People who have trouble recognizing the many important differences between Trump and Hitler, and possibly claiming to be God without forthrightly confirming or denying that that is what they are doing, don’t count as rational discussion of the relative merits of anything whatsoever. That, incidentally, is why mental competence, rudimentary knowledge of history and law, and the proven ability to form and defend a logical arguments should be among the minimal prerequisites to becoming a political decision-maker, and voters are certainly political decision-makers .