The problem with using polling data is that polls only report on the candidates they ask about. Thru election season I get bombarded with telephone polls; the candidates I support are almost never included.
This is a self-reinforcing system. When candidate debates are set up (generally by media organizations but sometimes civic organizations like the League of Women Voters) the criteria for who gets invited usually include polling at some arbitrary threshold. If you're not included in the poll you won't meet that threshold.
Where I live the Republican candidate will generally refuse to attend if our candidate is invited, so if the debate is organized by mainstream media they get a choice between a debate that includes everyone on the ballot or a debate more viewers will watch.
Nationwide presidential debates are organized by the Presidential Debate Commission, a bipartisan (see how that works? Only two parties) nonprofit. Their criteria include polling at 15% in nationwide polls. It used to be lower but our candidates kept meeting that threshold so they raised it.
This enforced invisibility keeps political discourse confined to a narrow channel and keeps established orthodoxies from being challenged. As a criterion for ballot access it has a fatal flaw: ballot access would be controlled by a private cartel.
private orgs, lobbyists...are running the $ and show, right?
don't want change, because that could be "disruptive" and lord knows we dont need/like volatility.
keep to the message(s): less/more disc spending; less/more regulation; less/more taxes; less/more abortions...always seems to be more defense spending
Please don't take this as an "endorsement" but...the whole point of getting signatures is so bleeding outdated and unnecessary. (last i heard it was a half dozen NYers who complained about being "misled")
Why not just go with the major polls?
ps according to the above poll, RFK has 7% and 5% share in NY and PA (but I suppose those polled could have been "misled")
The problem with using polling data is that polls only report on the candidates they ask about. Thru election season I get bombarded with telephone polls; the candidates I support are almost never included.
This is a self-reinforcing system. When candidate debates are set up (generally by media organizations but sometimes civic organizations like the League of Women Voters) the criteria for who gets invited usually include polling at some arbitrary threshold. If you're not included in the poll you won't meet that threshold.
Where I live the Republican candidate will generally refuse to attend if our candidate is invited, so if the debate is organized by mainstream media they get a choice between a debate that includes everyone on the ballot or a debate more viewers will watch.
Nationwide presidential debates are organized by the Presidential Debate Commission, a bipartisan (see how that works? Only two parties) nonprofit. Their criteria include polling at 15% in nationwide polls. It used to be lower but our candidates kept meeting that threshold so they raised it.
This enforced invisibility keeps political discourse confined to a narrow channel and keeps established orthodoxies from being challenged. As a criterion for ballot access it has a fatal flaw: ballot access would be controlled by a private cartel.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Aug 22, 2024 - 7:51am
black321 wrote:
weeding out the "riff raff" is the point, right? I don't doubt there are below the belt tactics in stopping him from siphoning whatever # of votes by the two parties.
Kennedy is polling up to 9% and 5% nationally.
So I guess we can attribute that to there being 9% and 5% of the population that think putting roadkill in a public park is funny. Takes all kinds.
While I don't disagree, it is the system at hand. I would counter with why not use the popular vote results instead of some oddball system designed to placate landholders 200+ years ago? There are several institutions that really are set up to make things difficult for 'outsiders' so the club members don't have to deal with riff-raff, and other constraints that are centuries gone.
weeding out the "riff raff" is the point, right? I don't doubt there are below the belt tactics in stopping him from siphoning whatever # of votes by the two parties.
Kennedy is polling up to 9% and 5% nationally.
Please don't take this as an "endorsement" but...the whole point of getting signatures is so bleeding outdated and unnecessary. (last i heard it was a half dozen NYers who complained about being "misled")
Why not just go with the major polls?
While I don't disagree, it is the system at hand. I would counter with why not use the popular vote results instead of some oddball system designed to placate landholders 200+ years ago? There are several institutions that really are set up to make things difficult for 'outsiders' so the club members don't have to deal with riff-raff, and other constraints that are centuries gone.
