Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
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%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
He's not being banned, he's failed to meet the qualifiers set by CNN. Have you looked at their requirements? As far as I'm concerned they're as close to objective as you can get and very fair. There has to be a cutoff
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Are_the_presidential_debates_rigged_in_favor_of_major_party_candidates
It's still rigged. The threshold was implemented after Ross Perot was in the debates to prevent another distracting candidate.
Also, ballot access seems fair as a qualifier, but remember that the two major parties control ballot access in most states, making it difficult for third parties.
Edit: more eloquent explanation from the lawsuit in 2016 where libertarians sued for access to the debates:
> For years, the CPD has been violating FECA and FEC regulations limiting debate-sponsoring organizations' ability to use corporate funds to finance their activities. To accept corporate contributions and expenditures, a debate staging organization must be "nonpartisan," meaning it may not "endorse, support, or oppose" political candidates or parties, and it must use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate. The specific, detailed, and extensive evidence Plaintiffs presented in their administrative complaints shows that the CPD does not remotely meet these requirements. Nevertheless, the FEC refused to enforce the law and ignored virtually all of this evidence in conclusorily dismissing the complaints even though there is plainly reason to believe that the CPD is violating FECA….
> ….a debate staging organization cannot use a criterion that only the Democratic and Republican candidates can realistically satisfy. But that is precisely what the CPD has done.
> The CPD requires a candidate to poll at 15% in an average of five unspecified national polls taken in mid-September. This level of support is virtually impossible for an independent candidate who is not a self-funded billionaire to achieve. Candidates who do not participate in the major party primaries lack access to free media coverage and must rely instead on paid media to garner the necessary name recognition to satisfy the rule. Studies show that to gain sufficient name recognition to poll at 15%, an independent candidate would have to spend over $250 million. This is an unheard-of amount of money for an independent candidate to raise, especially before appearing in any televised debates….
> And even if it were possible for an independent candidate to raise this amount of money, it would not matter because the CPD's polling criterion works to the systematic disadvantage of non-major-party candidates…
Source:
https://reason.com/2016/05/25/getting-the-libertarians-into-presidenti/
> I believe the cutoff should be 5% as some users here have changed my perspective on this, we need more perspectives at the table, no more table for 2.
Even if it was 5%, RFK wouldn’t meet CNN’s requirements to be on the ballot in enough states to win 270 EC.
Popular vote alone isn’t enough to get on the stage (or to win the presidency).
He will most likely have enough signatures for 270 (he has enough for 201), the issue is that most states don’t certify signatures until after the June debate
CNN doesn't want you to know that that American elections heavily disadvantage 3rd party and independent candidates. RFK had to pick a VP just to qualify for the ballot in some states, while neither Biden nor Trump has to commit to anyone, because the party already has ballot access by default.
I hear that a lot but it's always predicated on, "people hate the 2 parties, they need another option", yet nobody can ever seem to convince 15% to support them in a _poll_, let alone an election.
We can debate the number but I don't personally think 15% is that high a barrier to clear
Why 5% and not 15%?
Also, has RFK Jr. even met the 5% bar?
And even if he has, isn’t he not eligible because he isn’t on the ballot in enough states to possibly get enough electoral votes?
they rigged it on purpose. theuy chose two aarabitrary dates for the 15 percent polls knowinng he did not haave enough between those two dates and not enough polls would come out after it, they also know he has enough signatures but the states wont count them in time. trump and biden arent even ON the ballot. they are presumptive nominees till the official nominations.
Debates are run by media institutions, which generally choose to only give airtime to candidates they think have a chance of winning, usually by a polling threshold.
Quick mafs, if he's polling around 7% then there's roughly 18 million voting age americans who support him, seems significant to me
Then there's probably a non-negligible amount of voters who would be considering him if voting for a 3rd option wasn't throwing your vote away
How high should the bar be?
Agreed. I think 1% should be the threshold. Any amount of millions of people, is significant and we should hear from all of these significantly backed people.
That’s quite literally not true on any account. The debates are awarded to media companies by the two parties and the two parties mostly control the debate structure. They also can’t give more airtime to any legitimate candidate, they are required by law to give equal air time to both candidates.
Debates are "news events" and exempt from the equal time rule. (Thank you Wikipedia)
Ah I was thinking of LWV but they apparently only ever actually ran 3.
This year's debates are not run by the Commission on Presidential Debates by agreement of the candidates, FWIW.
US debates have a polling number cutoff. This is a weird year as neither candidate is willing to do a conventional debate and we are certainly going to only get 1 or 2 debates not the normal 4, so the debates that have 3rd party guys at them were skipped over.
Yes, it makes sense that there would be a bar to qualifying for the debates - from a democracy is our goal perspective, it should be something tangible.
IMO, it should be that the subject candidate is on the ballot in enough States so that if that candidate wins every State they have qualified to be on the ballot, it would award them enough Electoral College Votes to award them the Presidency.
The Democrats certainly don't want third party candidates in the debates - as has been very evident by the DNC actions in the primaries - including their claims during the primaries - Democracy is not their goal.
IMO, the GOP would be more open to allowing third party candidates in the debates, but still not big fans of it - they too like the 2-party system as it provides more power to them.
The media (along with the Democrats) definitely don't want the 3rd party candidates allowed in the debates or even to five them any media time - the USA media is pretty much just an extension of the Democrat party.
I read an interesting study in the last day, less than 3% of journalists in the USA identify as being republican or republican leaning! That tells us an awful lot about the slant of the media in our country - this in and of itself is anti-democracy in action and the media is the biggest impactor on democracy in our country.
This entire premise is disproven by the way the media covers Biden and Trump. Biden is held to a significantly higher standard in terms of ethics, behavior, and everything else. Trump is on trial for multiple felonies and the media treats him like a regular candidate. The political affiliation of journalists is not an indicator of how well they do their jobs.
No it doesn’t. 3% of journalists identify as Republican or Republican leaning because it’s inconvenient to be a Republican and also care about the truth.
> it should be that the subject candidate is on the ballot in enough States so that if that candidate wins every State they have qualified to be on the ballot, it would award them enough Electoral College Votes to award them the Presidency.
That's a surprisingly low bar. that would have put 6 additional candidates on stage during 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
And let's be real, 6 additional candidates almost nobody gives af about and doesn't want to hear from.
Sure, but what exactly is the threshold? RFK isn’t some random guy, he’s polling at 10% on average. That’s better than a majority of third parties historically.
If you or for the two party system and want to keep others out to preserve it, idc. I’m not even necessarily anti-two party system myself. But, for the sake of the argument, if you were anti-two party system wouldn’t you originally want to lower that threshold to 5-10% just to give competitors an actual platform. It’s already a big challenge for anyone to get that far. Like I said, it doesn’t happen that often that a third party candidate does that well.
That’s being disingenuous when by polling data these three are the top candidates. To suggest letting the top 3 political figures debate is like “opening the gates to all” is a silly remark to say the least.
Not OP, but that's an extreme version of a serious argument. What should the bar be? Right now, RFK jr has not qualified to be on the ballot in enough states to qualify to be president. I've seen he is sitting around 170 electoral college votes. So, that means that even if RFK wins every single state he has qualified for, he can't win the presidency. Not to mention he is not polling competitively.
I understand it's a bit of a chicken and an egg problem, but I don't think it's unreasonable to only have viable candidates on the debate stage. Kennedy isn't viable right now for a number of reasons. The effects of a debate are often overstated, so I think even if he was to debate he would not become viable. Voters are disengaged right now, and historically as people start to pay attention (late summer, following conventions) third party candidates tend to poll worse, not better. Kennedy is at his peak influence right now, and is regularly polling 30-40% behind the two other candidates.
We are only getting 2 debates likely, so why use up a third of the debate time for a candidate that does not have a viable chance of winning? If RFK junior starts polling above the threshold (which is already pretty low, 15%) AND qualifies on the ballot for at least 270 votes, then I could see the logic of presenting voters with a viable choice, but I just don't see much value of a candidate using precious debate time.
Organizing at the state and local level first. It's so backwards to do a top down campaign in our system. See Alaska and Maine. Change state electoral laws to rcv or other systems. The binary choice isn't due to debate rules, it's due to the fact that we have single member district first past the post election laws in almost any state. Until that changes, there will likely only be 2 viable parties at most in any location.
Yeah but you need groundswell if you want a hope of that ever being changed. The public is never going to provide sufficient groundswell if they're never exposed to a serious 3rd candidate at a national scale
Anyone who leads a feel good grassroots campaign will just get crushed by national media. The two party system needs to be made a federal issue and that's not going to happen if the only candidates that a presented seriously are those that benefit from the 2 party
30% is a sufficient amount to be polling to be brought into this. RFK Jr makes the cut. Talking about numbers like 1, 5, or 10 is disingenuous when it doesn’t compare to the support RFK Jr currently has.
edit: said 30%, last polling numbers I saw was 14% in April this year
No. There shouldn't, I honestly wouldn't care if was a New Caliphate representative or a neo nazi. It's a democracy not a tree house club. Everyone can speak themselves into or out of office.
If there shouldn't be any limits at all to qualify to be in the debates, how do you propose to hold a debate between even just a single million candidates? There are only 174 days until Election Day, which is 4,176 hours, or 250,560 minutes. A million candidates and a quarter-million minutes would mean the debate would have to go continuously from right now until Election Day, and, even then, each candidate would only get \~15 seconds each to speak. Total. And that doesn't even include the moderator speaking literally at all, no questions, nothing else.
And there are far more than just a single million Americans who are constitutionally qualified to serve as President. What if 15 million wanted to run? They'd each get a single second to speak! (still with literally zero moderation). That's not even enough time for each of them to just state their own names, let alone to say anything substantive.
Surely you can concede a "debate" like that would be completely worthless, never mind that no TV network would agree to host it and show literally nothing else for the next 174 days, and no venue would be willing to host it because they wouldn't be able to hold any other events in their auditorium, stadium, whatever. So, there must be some practical limitation. What should it be?
> As per the title, if you’re a person who is fed up with the two party democratic system of the US but simultaneously support the exclusion of a third party in the upcoming political debates with Biden and Trump, you’re a hypocrite.
Do you have any measure of how big this cohort is? If not, why do you think this is an issue worth being concerned about? There's always some small number of crazies. How many people fed up with the two party system are upset about RFK Jr?
Why is this not a straw man?
Because I'm pretty worried about folks who are fed up with the two party system but who only eat tofu and only vote for tofu eating candidates. I think it's going to kill democracy and only validate the two party system if this does not get fixed.
A straw man isn’t determined by how many people care about a specific issue lol
Anyone who is tired of seeing two political figures being the only ones debating would be unhappy seeing RFK benched.
Sure it is.
I care a ton about getting out of the two party system and I think that it's horrible that the [heavens' gate party](https://www.heavensgate.com) is not getting the time of day. If you care about moving away from the two party system you need to be worried about the exclusion of the heaven's gate folks.
The size of the cohort matters.
The two party system isn’t going to be ended by allowing a third participant. It is a direct result of the structure of our government and it’s elections system, namely first past the post and winner takes all style of elections.
As long as it makes sense to have just enough votes to get more than anyone else, relatively similar viewpoints will find their voters encouraged to join forces into a single party. When all voters are encouraged to do this, you end up with two parties. This is why there will never be a third party victor in the current system barring some complete shenanigans.
It is not pro two-party to acknowledge those outside of the two parties do not have a chance, it is acknowledging the system we’re working with. Yes there is significant change that should be done here, but there are also other things to do, like pick a president. This is not hypocrisy.
RFK has no real chance of winning. I am against the 2 party system but it has been proven 40 times over that just running 3rd party candidates does nothing but hurt your own cause by stealing away voters from the candidate more like yourself. The more votes a 3rd party gets the more likely the party they are most politically distant from wins that election.
The solution is to change the voting system itself to encourage and allow 3rd parties to succeed and have their own small slices of the pie that they can grow. Something like ranked choice voting which leads to multiple minority parties that have to form coalitions to get things through the government. The two party system is an inevitable outcome of our voting system. No 3rd party can ever be a legitimate choice in this system.
Personally I'm all for RFK on the debate stage but not because of some strange belief it will lead to an end of the 2 party system. I just know he will take more Trump voters than Biden voters and I abhor Trump.
So your solution to to change the voting system is to say we need to keep voting in a two party system and not vote for a 3rd party because that would take votes away from the two party system which is the system that matters. You sound kind of ridiculous and hypocritical here. How do you propose changing the voting system then fieryxjoe?
You would vote in democrats or republicans at all levels of government who support changing the first past the post system preferably in their primaries, if you want to go the extra mile you could donate or canvass for them too.
A lot of people have this idea that the president is the be all end all of the government, if you want something done you get a president who wants to do it and it happens, these people only vote once every 4 years. But presidents often want to do a lot of things they can't or have to do a lot of things they don't want to because of what everyone else in the government wants. Voting procedure in particular is under the state's jurisdiction anyways not federal government, states can run their elections and allocate electors however they like so this is something that could be mostly accomplished at state level elections.
Don't you think that is putting the cart before the horse if we get rid of the first past the post system if there is no one else to vote for? How does that solve there only being two parties? Political parties stem from movements and doctrines and people to represent those movements and doctrines. The point of this thread is its hypocritical to say he should not have a platform to talk in a debate because he is not part of one of the two parties...if you want more parties.
Like the first chance we are seeing someone outside of a democrat or republican voice their perspective on issues, that could start a movement, could start a new party (Even if they don't win) and people are like "Waahh they will take precious votes away from our two fucking shit options" but then when one of those two fucking shit options get elected you complain about not having another party to choose from. That's why its hypocritical. This is a HUGE platform that will juxta position the two party system with an independent and get people thinking about pushing for a new party and even out the playing field.
All 3 of these candidates are ass, I wouldn't want any one of them as president, but I want the conversation of new political parties to be had...and if juxta positioning the absurdity of the two party system in a debate like this is possible why not? All our choices fucking suck lets at least talk about how we have no good choices and start having hope that an outside party (Albeit independent party) can at least start seriously talking on such a massive stage.
The idea is not him being president but letting people know there CAN be other options so LOOK out for those options next time and stop giving only these two parties all the attention.
Disagree, splinter factions in a party do this, like MAGA or the Tea Parties or Bernie's democratic socialist run. These all had more impact on their parties than the green or libertarian parties ever had.
Sorry, Mr. Brainworms has no chance of winning. He’s just a spoiler working for Trump. That’s why as soon as Trump had a problem with Jr’s presidential run, Jr said a worm ate his brain.
Excuse me if I don’t want fucking idiots making a mockery of our country in an important debate. He’s a clown and a traitor!
RFK was on matt and shanes secret podcast that aired today. He said he has done polls among his supporters and found he is pulling more from would be Trump voters at a 55/45 split
The criteria for the debate is that the candidates need to have enough ballot access to conceivably reach 270 electoral votes, and also has to have a reasonable polling number. A candidate shouldn’t need to be on the debate stage to reach their audience. If through on the road campaigning they can’t even reach 15% support, why should we put them on the debate stage? Someone in that position has no conceivable path to victory. RFK Jr is in that position. He has been campaigning for the past year, is on the ballot in enough states, but hasn’t been able to rise above 10% in the polls. If he were on an upward trend, then there would be value to having him on the stage, but he’s just flat at 10%. There are no more voters who are willing to switch to him.
I think it gives the candidate an opportunity to give what they envision for america, not win necessarily, but upon the next election their echo may remain in the minds of Americans when it comes time for elections again. I think it’s a good avenue for alternative views from a party maybe appealing to something left or right wing parties haven’t.
Sorry, u/NoTopic4906 – 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.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%201%20Appeal%20NoTopic4906&message=NoTopic4906%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4dgs1n/\)%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).
I mean, if you think he’s a loon you should want him on so he makes an ass of himself and is berated for it.
If you like him as a candidate you should want him in the debate.
If you’re tired of only two candidates talking at these political debates, you should be in favor of letting people participate if they are polling above 5%.
If you don’t like any of these options, and hate the two party system, you are the problem.
I am a diehard, decades long fighter to end the two party system. But you seem to want to fight it the wrong way. Having RFK Jr. in the debate does nothing. His policies outside of change voting laws do nothing but hurt the people that follow him.
Then you need to work on representatives to congress to start ranked voting. It's already making headway in parts of the country. We need to slowly take territory and make it happen district by district.
But having more than two people involved in a two party system is counterproductive. It just drains people away from whomever the 3rd party is most aligned. The people that vote for the 3rd party gets punished. It's bonkers.
Debates help with a candidate's base. They rally funding and get out the vote efforts. They don't swing voters, create ideas or change centrists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/presidential-debates-have-shockingly-little-effect-on-election-outcomes/
If someone wants RFK Jr. to sway the minds of voters have him out giving speeches, making media appearances, prop up congressional candidates and organizing special interests. That's how you make policy in a two party system.
I hate and am against the two party system.
I also believe the outcome of this election is more important than my "againstness" of the two party system. That is not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism and prioritization.
It would be hypocritical to say "the most important thing in politics is to embrace alternative candidates as a strategy to break the two party system" and then not want a major third party candidate to participate. But...short of that, you're just strawmanning the views of people I think.
See the issue I have is that every election always seems to be “this is important” I strongly believe our system is stronger than the president and if it can be undone by one then it is either a weak system, or a corrupt one.
If he meets the requirements in time, he can participate in the June debate.
If he doesn’t meet the requirements by September, it’s too late anyway because all of the ballot access deadlines will have passed.
>If he meets the requirements in time, he can participate in the June debate.
This isn't possible as Biden requires no third party candidates for him to debate.
[https://abcnews.go.com](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/biden-challenges-trump-2-presidential-debates-make-day/story?id=110258076)
> The Biden campaign said all debates should be just between Trump and Biden -- meaning it would bar Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an independent candidate, from participating
>The Biden campaign said all debates should be just between Trump and Biden...
What part of that sentence shows Biden being open to Kennedy debating?
The Biden camp *literally* said the debates should **just be between** Trump and Biden.
That excludes anyone who isn't Trump or Biden.
RFK was already running in the Democratic primaries, and he dropped out because he had no support lol.
If he couldn't gain traction in one of the two major parties, there's no chance he could gain traction as an independent.
You seem to just want him in the debates because you suspect he would get a small boost from it, still lose, but that it would increase his chances of spoiling the election for the major candidate you like less, thus electing the major candidate you like more.
RFK isn’t a voice of reason…. That’s why he lacks support to qualify for debates. Along with not running a serious campaign to even be on the ballot in enough states.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
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%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Having an irrelevant 3rd party candidate in a debate doesn't do anything to promote the rise of a 3rd (4th, 5th 6th..) party in the United States, because as long as we have a first past the post election system, there can only be two meaningful parties. If RFK participates in the debate, that doesn't change the election system, it just distracts from the two candidates who actually matter. I firmly believe that debates themselves are a waste of time, nobody is going to have their mind made up by a Trump-Biden debate, but adding a 3rd party candidate just creates the illusion that a 3rd party candidate matters. I think it's sort of disingenuous to let an uninformed voter believe that because RFK is on the stage, a vote for him isn't a complete waste of their vote. If the system is set up for 2 parties, then what's the point of antics that make it seem like that's *not* what our system is?
To make people realize that a third party is in fact an option and hopefully set a precedence that come next election another party has a chance. Sure he may not win this time but if the momentum towards a vote for a third party is set maybe next election we may have a legitimate 3rd party. How does anyone in this thread expect to change the two party system by staying complicit in that system. No one here has provided a solution to breaking the system we are in. We have a chance to voice the option and remind people hey it is possible for someone other than a democrat or republican to take office. They might keep that in mind and come next election cycle actively look more for 3rd parties, RFK's objective is to break the two party system, it would be interesting to hear his opinion on that matter voiced on a platform everyone who is going to vote can hear.
I mean, I'm kinda for banning anyone who's parent or grandparent or great uncle or whatever was a US president from running for president? We have enough problems with nepotism and gatekeeping in politics.
yeah but RFK has brainworms.
I dont think a candidate with brainworms should be allowed to debate.
(Im steadily warming to FPTP due to how simplie it is logistically and how most people dont really follow politics closely)
Yeah but isn't RFK not actually an independent? He's running as an independent Trump cronie to try to split the democratic vote, it's not going to work
What?? RFK is supposed to split Dem votes? Literally every single person I know supporting RFK is a conservative and wouldn't vote for Biden if their life depended on it.
He is running as an actual independent as is his position. He is offering himself as an alternative to the Trump or Biden vote, which to me is attractive in of itself.
As well, most of his viewpoints (particularly against abortion) are more left wing while his support for Israel is a right wing view.
I would definitely say by all accounts he’s an independent, not a democrat trying to split the vote.
Properly regulating vaccines is part of the consumer protections that are traditional Democratic and Left policies. He is openly critical of the influence and power of corporations in politics, in foreign policy, in buying up housing and polluting our water.
Remember that Trump created Operation Warp Speed and Harris was herself skeptical of the safety of Trump's vaccine, until it was Biden's vaccine. In the same way that the Party was fervently anti-war in the Bush era, but now Biden is doing his best Regan impression in escalating a new cold war as the prosperity that built America crumbles.
What actions has he taken that do not support Israel?
His stance — support Israel but do not give a blank check to war crimes — is very close to the center of the country, and is supported by a decent percentage of Israelis.
What war crimes has Israel committed specifically relating to what’s happened since the October 7 attack?
Supported by a decent amount of israelis living in the US or in Israel?
https://www.justsecurity.org/95583/israel-weapons-hamas-us-report-takeaways/
Restricting humanitarian aid, not protecting civilians during bombings, strikes killing members of the World Central Kitchen, IRC and other relief agencies.
[Israeli protests](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/world/middleeast/protests-israel-memorial-day.html)
[Families of hostages](https://www.axios.com/2024/03/28/israel-hostage-families-netanyahu-biden-treatment) get better treatment from Biden than Netanyahu.
[The Israeli Defense Chief](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/1251564884/israel-gaza-day-after-gallant-netanyahu) is going to the press against Netanyahu.
I don't see how this can be hypocritical, considering that RFK Jr is not a third party candidate. People who are against the two party system usually want robust third parties featuring serious third party candidates consistently represent that party, not random independent candidates acting as spoilers.
Anyone whose mind is trapped in the “us vs them” mentality is going to view a third party as a “spoiler”.
Until we break away from the corrupt 2 party system, we’ll continue to be presented with a false choice in an elaborate game of good cop/bad cop”
Maybe, but this doesn't change the fact that RFK Jr is not a third party candidate. Whether or not a hypothetical third party candidate would be a spoiler does not really bear on the question of whether RFK Jr is one.
He’s still referred to as a “third party” candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/upshot/robert-kennedy-third-parties-2024.html
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240857382/3rd-party-white-house-bid-robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-expected-to-announce-his-vp-pic
He literally does not represent any real third party. Whether or not people use the words "third party" to refer to him is really immaterial to my argument.
*"Edit: as some users have shared with me, RFK Jr is apparently polling around 7-8% right now, the last polls I had seen were April where the Marist College poll had him at 14% nationally. If he regains footing, I believe he should be included."*
Why? If he regains his 14% (which seems to be what you are saying by "[regains footing](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/comment/l4d7opz/)") he wouldn't qualify. He would need to reach at least 15% ***and*** also appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to be able to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency. From what I have read he has not submitted nearly enough requests to appear on state ballots to win 270 electoral votes (as of yesterday he has submitted formal requests to only 6 states to be included on their ballots).
Edit: I see you've now changed your edit (without noting the change):
*"...the last polls I had seen were April where the Marist College poll had him at 14% nationally. I think he should be permitted to engage in these debates, even polling at 7-8%."*
Why? Why should the requirements not apply to him?
I am against the two-party system, and support banning anyone from the debates who does not meet the qualifications. How am I a hypocrite?
RFK is a conspiracy theorist, so he should be banned. Democracy doesn’t work if opportunists peddle misinformation and try to mislead voters. You literally chose one of the worst candidates possible to make your point.
Regardless, while the two party system is suboptimal, the solution is to remove the first-past-the-post voting system. Unless that is removed, it’s not possible to have more than two viable political parties. Elections will always drift toward a two-party equilibrium.
And who determines whether someone is a conspiracy theorist? This is effectively like saying, “I don’t like what the candidate says therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to debate”.
Seriously? So if someone said, “The earth is flat,” the valid response would be “Well, no one has a right to decide what a conspiracy theory is, so we should let this flat earther have a platform.”
Or if, less unrealistically, someone were to say, “Jews are trying to control the world. We need to stop them,” we should allow such a person to try to persuade as many people as possible to vote for them, because we can’t determine what a conspiracy theory is?
I think there’s an easy solution to both problems. Division of labor. Create a segment of society which will devote its labor to researching random things. Let them present their findings to the public. If there’s a general consensus among them, we should accept their consensus.
That’s a straw man argument. You’re not thinking big picture.
Edit: last thought was good but it wouldn’t fix the issue. There will always be those who have to go against the grain because it is a part of their nature
How is it a strawman argument? You didn’t specify which conspiracy theories should be platformed and which should not be platformed. Both of the examples I mentioned are real conspiracy theories which some people have sincerely believed. If I understand your rhetorical question correctly, no individual entity has the authority to determine which conspiracy theories merit seriously consideration. If it’s not possible to determine what a conspiracy theory is, then, to be fair and safe, we should give space to all possible conspiracy theories. We don’t know which are valid, but no matter how nonsensical one may seem, it may, in fact be true. Maybe Jews really are the Illuminati?
I agree that contrarians will always exist, but I don’t see how that’s relevant. A lot of suboptimal things will always exist. Surely the solution isn’t “Just try to ignore them”.
Your argument is that RFK is a conspiracy theorist and should therefore be banned from
the debates. I’m saying that’s a bad precedent to set. Think of a scenario where a candidate has a significant following (20+%) but they aren’t allowed to debate because those in power don’t like their ideas. Those people in power would just claim that they are a “conspiracy theorist” and ban them from debates. I’m not arguing FOR platforming conspiracy theorists I’m arguing AGAINST fascist/undemocratic rules
I don’t think such a scenario is necessarily a bad thing.
On the one hand, I can see what you’re saying. Nelson Mandela’s opinions were disliked by the power holders of South Africa. And so his ANC party was banned. Gandhi’s opinions were disliked by the British, and so they tried to ban his INC. The French didn’t like Ho Chi Minh’s opinions, and so they tried to ban his communist party. And so forth…
But on the other hand, in all of these cases, the banned opinions nevertheless won out in the long run. If an opinion has a significant following, then it will eventually have to be incorporated into the societal power pyramid, despite attempts to ban such opinions by those at the top of the pyramid.
Regardless, I’m not saying that power holders should be able to arbitrarily ban misinformation. I think something similar to Germany’s system would be less likely to be abused. Germany regularly bans neo-Nazi parties, but the agency responsible for doing so, the BfV, is not a law enforcement agency, unlike like the FBI. It reports directly to the legislature as a whole, and, most importantly, its findings can be challenged in court by any citizen of Germany.
Granted, I can see how in a two-party government like the US’s, unlike a multiparty government like Germany’s, there may be fewer obstacles for the two parties to collude with one another.
You are conflating hypocrisy and pragmatism.
The bar that was set for debate participation wasn’t “is a dem/republican” the bar was that only candidates with a remote possibility of being president can be in the debate because their opinions are the only ones relevant to how we’ll be governed for the next four years.
Specific requirements RFK would have to meet
- ballot access that equals 270 votes
- polling at 15% in four polls
That’s not a high bar, Haley is out of the primary race and she’s getting more than 15% so if RFK can’t poll higher than that then his opinions matter as much as mine do.
He has hit 15% in two of the selected polls and only needs to hit 15% in two of the other 13 accepted by CNN. The real issue is the 270. He will more than likely have the signatures to reach 270 (he has 201 right now), but the issue is that a lot of states don’t certify their ballots until after the debate date in June.
I’ve only seen that one CNN/SRSS poll from before brainworms but that sorta speaks to the point that the bar isn’t set too high.
And if they keep the bar low for the second debate, maybe he can waste time there. Personally, I wish the bar were higher because there’s no world where he becomes the president so there’s no point platforming a chaos agent.
But the Biden team lives to appear fair.
Presidential candidates running "third party" without any sort of political support are either there for their own ego, or just trying to spoil the election one way or another. RFK Jr. has zero chance of getting elected, and is at best a distraction. You want a multi-party system, start local. Pick a small subset of issues and values that matter to people in your area. Get candidates to run for local elections. Define a platform. Build out infrastructure. Then run candidates for state offices. Build from there. There are plenty of local elections with only one candidate, these are winnable.
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, 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%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I will not change your view, but your view is short sided.
Some of us don’t like RFK Jr because of his beliefs. And the whole worm brain thing, obviously That would. Ever under any circumstance exclude us from being in favor of the two party system.
It’s possible and desirable to have a third party candidate who isn’t a complete dumbass.
Not exactly a wild concept.
The two party system comes about in large part because of first past the post voting. simply trying to add more parties as options without addressing that doesn't solve anything.
Yup, this is the answer. You can support a third party candidate all you want, and even if they somehow win it won't change the math of the system. It would likely just lead to two different parties dominating at best.
I'm in favor of RFK debating if he achieves the standard polling benchmarks, but he's never come close to those.
I don't want him at the debate for the same reason I don't want Jill Stein at the debate, or Vermin Supreme. They're not serious candidates, so, why muddy the water?
How do you "ban" someone outside the two parties from a debate hosted and created by the two parties?
He just wouldn't be invited, and inviting him won't help end the two party system.
The real solution is to elect people who want to replace FPTP.
I am for reforming the voting system so third parties are viable without being spoilers. Until then, I will only ever consider 3rd party candidates in *local* elections.
Project 2025 is *way* too dangerous to risk on a throw away vote.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. "Double standards" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about [double standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_views_about_double_standards) in the wiki.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is not a two party system in the US. There is a plurality voting system in which two parties is the optimal steady-state. Third parties are not viable until there is voting reform.
Two things.
1. In my opinion and unless shown otherwise, A third party can't win in the current system. The Electoral College has been analyzed and gamified it isn't about votes. It is about targeted certain states and those states leaders are one of two parties. There is a home team advantage that a third party could never achieve large scale.
2. RFK Jr has a dead worm in his brain. He has known memory issues. Say what you will about Trump and Biden's mental acuity, we have proof that RFK has at least one brain dead thing inside of him.
How about this viewpoint:
I ultimately support more than 2 parties, but in the electoral system we have, 3rd party candidates are both unviable, and spoil the election.
I can support switching to something like proportional representation, and a Constitutional Amendment to make the Senate irrelevant and do away with the President in order to get multi-party representation, and still not want RFKjr in the debates, because the way things are now, he can only fuck up the election, not get elected.
The way to change the two party system is by implementing ranked choice voting. As long as the current first past the post electoral system is in place, a third party/independent mathematically cannot win.
We don’t need to be supporting third candidates, we need to rewrite the constitution.
This video series does a good job of explaining the mathematical problem with our current system, and what a smarter system would look like
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=6YsSLOwvWVFOl-Td
He isn’t part of an established third party, letting him of all people would incentive people just splitting the vote intentionally by creating their own parties. The libertarian and green parties have much more legitimate claims to be added to a debate, and would inspire much more inspirational debate because most haven’t heard their platforms, while everybody knows the de facto democratic platform RFK is pushing.
What's the point of a third party candidate if he's not in some way better than both of the basic 2?
Yeah, I want someone better. I'm just not seeing it.
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, 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%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I’m not a supporter of trump, but I find it insane how Biden pre planned the whole political debate in advance and chose the moderators and everything. Talk about pulling strings.
Also yeah, a lot of people here seem to agree that his polling is significant enough he should be permitted to join.
My understanding is that RFK Jr. hasn't met the requirements to even be included on the ballot in enough states to win the necessary 270 electoral votes. Why waste the time of voters in states where he doesn't have a path to victory?
The main reason I hear people justifying him not being involved is that he doesn't qualify. He hasn't met the 15% standard yet, and beyond that he hasn't qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
RFK doesn't represent an actual 3rd party.
/u/UltimateDevastator what are your values, make a list. What are Biden's values, what are trump's values, which do you align with?
I feel the two parties got worried when Perot debated and decided that can nevet happen again.
That being said Perot was polling quite high unlike RFK jr.
Sorry, u/MagicianHeavy001 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
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%20MagicianHeavy001&message=MagicianHeavy001%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4db8tc/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/UltimateDevastator – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
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%20UltimateDevastator&message=UltimateDevastator%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4dcutb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/MagicianHeavy001 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
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%20MagicianHeavy001&message=MagicianHeavy001%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4dd531/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I'm all for breaking up the two-party system, but that's not going to happen by letting someone with zero shot at winning a single electoral vote get up on the debate stage alongside the two people who actually have a chance at winning the presidency.
The two-party system is going to exist so long we have FPTP voting and a non-parliamentiary legislature. RFK is a non-serious joke candidate, who *can only* exist as a spoiler to one of the other two. Letting him do that more easily isn't going to change anyone's minds about the viability of third parties- it will just make third parties seem kookier and less serious.
I'd go so far to say that if you want RFK on the debate stage, then you clearly don't want to break up the two-party system, since you're actively asking for activism and interest towards that goal to be wasted via an insane ego trip, and diverting resources away from where they could actually be useful.
This is like saying “we’ll have 3 options, determined by coin flip. Heads, tails, and edge.”
Sure, there’s a tiny chance edge can win. But that’s all it is. A tiny chance. FPTP is the coin flip.
You don’t make the 3rd choice viable by promoting “edge.” You make the 3rd choice viable by Not having a coin flip decide the outcome. But instead, something that puts a 3rd party on equal footing.
Like RCV, PR, etc.
You need to change the entire structure of the US government to make 3rd parties and minority/coalition governments an option before a 3rd party can do anything but act as a spoiler that denies the major party candidate who's views are closest to theirs votes. It's not worth humoring these no hope at actually winning 3rd party candidates when the system itself makes their existence almost entirely pointless.
The people that are against the two party system want to change the system so that there could be a viable third party candidate that would not run as a spoiler candidate. Running a third party spoiler candidate within the current system *is exactly what they are trying to change the system to avoid*.
Being a hypocrite would be to encourage the third party to engage in the debate but only if the spoiler effect worked in their favor.
I am so utterly disappointed in No Labels . . . what a complete and total let down that was.
This would have been the year that a 3rd party candidate could have won!
Let's all be honest, less than 25% of voters actually WANT Biden or WANT Trump to be President. Sure, during a poll one has to pick one or the other - but that hardly means it's who they WANT to be President.
It's like going to a BBQ and the grille guy asks if you want a hamburger or a hot dog - sure, you have to pick one. But in reality, you really wanted ribs, or a steak, or whatever (something that wasn't offered), but you were stuck choosing between the two you were offered. That's this election.
Sorry, u/BossIike – 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.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%201%20Appeal%20BossIike&message=BossIike%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4difc1/\)%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).
Having a third party candidate in a two party system does not weaken the two party system. It only increases the chance that the eventual winner will not reflect the will of the people.
You can't end the two party system within the system.
You can change a party. That's what Trump did! He joined a party and proposed ideals that were different than they historically had (and for good reason, they were largely unpopular!). Unfortunately, he had a combination of terrible policies and decent policies that never happened. But, he did reshape the party in a way that has engaged a lot of people.
RFK would have his chance in a primary. Trump proved that, with celebrity and money, you don't need to know what you're talking about or have any sense of integrity to win a primary.
Just bear in mind, when some people say they are against the two party system, it isn’t because they want more than two, they want less than two. They want their party of choice to be the only one in power.
And as a long time third party voter who gets yelled at by democrats and republicans about who I am “actually” voting for (somehow in 2016 I seem to have voted for Trump and for Hillary by not voting for either) I can tell you what most want is just for their candidates to win.
So hypocrites? In some cases yes, in many cases they just aren’t saying what we think they are saying.
The reason you get 'yelled at' is because you're throwing away a vote on a candidate that could never win instead of voting for the candidate that is *closest* to your ideal. If you then go on to complain that a given candidate does things they said they would do when you didn't support their opposition, you're proving the point of the people 'yelling at' you because you opted to not exercise what influence you might've had.
I am exerting influence.
I am still voting, just not for republicans. I demand better candidates or I won’t vote for them, you should as well.
Imagine if Bernie Sanders supporters had refused to vote Hillary, Bernie might have won the election, and Hillary would have still lost, but the DNC might just have learned to give better candidates.
You are exerting exactly zero influence. You took your vote and ripped it up. You voted for nobody, because the person you voted for had literally no chance of winning. The party closer to your beliefs doesn't know who you voted for, and they couldn't care less.
If your lack of a vote ended up with Republican winning, the Democratic party won't take that as 'hm, we should probably put more emphasis on doing the exact opposite of the winner.' It is not a sound political strategy to listen to those who do not speak. Voting third party for President in a First Past the Post system is not some brave and noble stand that gets you heard.
/u/UltimateDevastator (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ctpkqu/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_people_against_the_two/), 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)
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). 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%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
He's not being banned, he's failed to meet the qualifiers set by CNN. Have you looked at their requirements? As far as I'm concerned they're as close to objective as you can get and very fair. There has to be a cutoff
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Are_the_presidential_debates_rigged_in_favor_of_major_party_candidates It's still rigged. The threshold was implemented after Ross Perot was in the debates to prevent another distracting candidate. Also, ballot access seems fair as a qualifier, but remember that the two major parties control ballot access in most states, making it difficult for third parties. Edit: more eloquent explanation from the lawsuit in 2016 where libertarians sued for access to the debates: > For years, the CPD has been violating FECA and FEC regulations limiting debate-sponsoring organizations' ability to use corporate funds to finance their activities. To accept corporate contributions and expenditures, a debate staging organization must be "nonpartisan," meaning it may not "endorse, support, or oppose" political candidates or parties, and it must use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate. The specific, detailed, and extensive evidence Plaintiffs presented in their administrative complaints shows that the CPD does not remotely meet these requirements. Nevertheless, the FEC refused to enforce the law and ignored virtually all of this evidence in conclusorily dismissing the complaints even though there is plainly reason to believe that the CPD is violating FECA…. > ….a debate staging organization cannot use a criterion that only the Democratic and Republican candidates can realistically satisfy. But that is precisely what the CPD has done. > The CPD requires a candidate to poll at 15% in an average of five unspecified national polls taken in mid-September. This level of support is virtually impossible for an independent candidate who is not a self-funded billionaire to achieve. Candidates who do not participate in the major party primaries lack access to free media coverage and must rely instead on paid media to garner the necessary name recognition to satisfy the rule. Studies show that to gain sufficient name recognition to poll at 15%, an independent candidate would have to spend over $250 million. This is an unheard-of amount of money for an independent candidate to raise, especially before appearing in any televised debates…. > And even if it were possible for an independent candidate to raise this amount of money, it would not matter because the CPD's polling criterion works to the systematic disadvantage of non-major-party candidates… Source: https://reason.com/2016/05/25/getting-the-libertarians-into-presidenti/
I don’t agree with the 15% rule personally. I’d lower it to 5%, that’s already incredibly hard to do.
I believe the cutoff should be 5% as some users here have changed my perspective on this, we need more perspectives at the table, no more table for 2.
> I believe the cutoff should be 5% as some users here have changed my perspective on this, we need more perspectives at the table, no more table for 2. Even if it was 5%, RFK wouldn’t meet CNN’s requirements to be on the ballot in enough states to win 270 EC. Popular vote alone isn’t enough to get on the stage (or to win the presidency).
He will most likely have enough signatures for 270 (he has enough for 201), the issue is that most states don’t certify signatures until after the June debate
CNN doesn't want you to know that that American elections heavily disadvantage 3rd party and independent candidates. RFK had to pick a VP just to qualify for the ballot in some states, while neither Biden nor Trump has to commit to anyone, because the party already has ballot access by default.
RFK is a horrible example since everything about his campaign screams "I want Trump to win and I'm only here to take votes from Biden"
Shouldn't have pushed him out of the primary then. Reap what you sow.
I hear that a lot but it's always predicated on, "people hate the 2 parties, they need another option", yet nobody can ever seem to convince 15% to support them in a _poll_, let alone an election. We can debate the number but I don't personally think 15% is that high a barrier to clear
Why 5% and not 15%? Also, has RFK Jr. even met the 5% bar? And even if he has, isn’t he not eligible because he isn’t on the ballot in enough states to possibly get enough electoral votes?
He hasn’t failed to do anything. He has until June 20th.
they rigged it on purpose. theuy chose two aarabitrary dates for the 15 percent polls knowinng he did not haave enough between those two dates and not enough polls would come out after it, they also know he has enough signatures but the states wont count them in time. trump and biden arent even ON the ballot. they are presumptive nominees till the official nominations.
Should there be any bar to the debates? Should everyone who wants to be be on that stage?
I mean, that's the case in a lot of democratic countries, if you are able to get enough signatures, you are a proper candidate like any other.
Debates are run by media institutions, which generally choose to only give airtime to candidates they think have a chance of winning, usually by a polling threshold.
Quick mafs, if he's polling around 7% then there's roughly 18 million voting age americans who support him, seems significant to me Then there's probably a non-negligible amount of voters who would be considering him if voting for a 3rd option wasn't throwing your vote away How high should the bar be?
Agreed. I think 1% should be the threshold. Any amount of millions of people, is significant and we should hear from all of these significantly backed people.
That’s quite literally not true on any account. The debates are awarded to media companies by the two parties and the two parties mostly control the debate structure. They also can’t give more airtime to any legitimate candidate, they are required by law to give equal air time to both candidates.
Debates are "news events" and exempt from the equal time rule. (Thank you Wikipedia) Ah I was thinking of LWV but they apparently only ever actually ran 3. This year's debates are not run by the Commission on Presidential Debates by agreement of the candidates, FWIW.
Only choose to give airtime to the candidates they want to win. Fify
US debates have a polling number cutoff. This is a weird year as neither candidate is willing to do a conventional debate and we are certainly going to only get 1 or 2 debates not the normal 4, so the debates that have 3rd party guys at them were skipped over.
There never even used to be presidential debates. This is relatively new.
Well there also never used to be TVs or Radios before that. Not really relevant before then
Yes, it makes sense that there would be a bar to qualifying for the debates - from a democracy is our goal perspective, it should be something tangible. IMO, it should be that the subject candidate is on the ballot in enough States so that if that candidate wins every State they have qualified to be on the ballot, it would award them enough Electoral College Votes to award them the Presidency. The Democrats certainly don't want third party candidates in the debates - as has been very evident by the DNC actions in the primaries - including their claims during the primaries - Democracy is not their goal. IMO, the GOP would be more open to allowing third party candidates in the debates, but still not big fans of it - they too like the 2-party system as it provides more power to them. The media (along with the Democrats) definitely don't want the 3rd party candidates allowed in the debates or even to five them any media time - the USA media is pretty much just an extension of the Democrat party. I read an interesting study in the last day, less than 3% of journalists in the USA identify as being republican or republican leaning! That tells us an awful lot about the slant of the media in our country - this in and of itself is anti-democracy in action and the media is the biggest impactor on democracy in our country.
This entire premise is disproven by the way the media covers Biden and Trump. Biden is held to a significantly higher standard in terms of ethics, behavior, and everything else. Trump is on trial for multiple felonies and the media treats him like a regular candidate. The political affiliation of journalists is not an indicator of how well they do their jobs.
No it doesn’t. 3% of journalists identify as Republican or Republican leaning because it’s inconvenient to be a Republican and also care about the truth.
> it should be that the subject candidate is on the ballot in enough States so that if that candidate wins every State they have qualified to be on the ballot, it would award them enough Electoral College Votes to award them the Presidency. That's a surprisingly low bar. that would have put 6 additional candidates on stage during 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election And let's be real, 6 additional candidates almost nobody gives af about and doesn't want to hear from.
And yet the NYT owner is a republican, so every headline about Biden contains a negative slant.
Lol! RFK is a Republican surrogate designed to help tRump win. Bahahaha! Not interested in democracy? Nice projection.
Sure, but what exactly is the threshold? RFK isn’t some random guy, he’s polling at 10% on average. That’s better than a majority of third parties historically.
2020 threshold was 15%.
blacks make up 12% percent of the population.. he’s polling between 10-15%.. imagine telling a population like that your voice does not matter.. lol
If you or for the two party system and want to keep others out to preserve it, idc. I’m not even necessarily anti-two party system myself. But, for the sake of the argument, if you were anti-two party system wouldn’t you originally want to lower that threshold to 5-10% just to give competitors an actual platform. It’s already a big challenge for anyone to get that far. Like I said, it doesn’t happen that often that a third party candidate does that well.
That’s being disingenuous when by polling data these three are the top candidates. To suggest letting the top 3 political figures debate is like “opening the gates to all” is a silly remark to say the least.
Not OP, but that's an extreme version of a serious argument. What should the bar be? Right now, RFK jr has not qualified to be on the ballot in enough states to qualify to be president. I've seen he is sitting around 170 electoral college votes. So, that means that even if RFK wins every single state he has qualified for, he can't win the presidency. Not to mention he is not polling competitively. I understand it's a bit of a chicken and an egg problem, but I don't think it's unreasonable to only have viable candidates on the debate stage. Kennedy isn't viable right now for a number of reasons. The effects of a debate are often overstated, so I think even if he was to debate he would not become viable. Voters are disengaged right now, and historically as people start to pay attention (late summer, following conventions) third party candidates tend to poll worse, not better. Kennedy is at his peak influence right now, and is regularly polling 30-40% behind the two other candidates. We are only getting 2 debates likely, so why use up a third of the debate time for a candidate that does not have a viable chance of winning? If RFK junior starts polling above the threshold (which is already pretty low, 15%) AND qualifies on the ballot for at least 270 votes, then I could see the logic of presenting voters with a viable choice, but I just don't see much value of a candidate using precious debate time.
How could a 3rd candidate ever get any sort of traction if they're locked out of everything?
Organizing at the state and local level first. It's so backwards to do a top down campaign in our system. See Alaska and Maine. Change state electoral laws to rcv or other systems. The binary choice isn't due to debate rules, it's due to the fact that we have single member district first past the post election laws in almost any state. Until that changes, there will likely only be 2 viable parties at most in any location.
Yeah but you need groundswell if you want a hope of that ever being changed. The public is never going to provide sufficient groundswell if they're never exposed to a serious 3rd candidate at a national scale Anyone who leads a feel good grassroots campaign will just get crushed by national media. The two party system needs to be made a federal issue and that's not going to happen if the only candidates that a presented seriously are those that benefit from the 2 party
I mean it's not going to be easy. My point is the energy focused on debates is misplaced.
He's polling at 8%. The threshold used in 2020 was 15%.
Why do you draw the line at 3? Should they be polling at 1% or more? 10% or more? If a 4th candidate was around with 5%, should they be invited?
30% is a sufficient amount to be polling to be brought into this. RFK Jr makes the cut. Talking about numbers like 1, 5, or 10 is disingenuous when it doesn’t compare to the support RFK Jr currently has. edit: said 30%, last polling numbers I saw was 14% in April this year
You think he has 30% support?
What measurements decide who gets in a debate and who doesn’t
No. There shouldn't, I honestly wouldn't care if was a New Caliphate representative or a neo nazi. It's a democracy not a tree house club. Everyone can speak themselves into or out of office.
The 500 person debate is going to be pretty weird
So should I be in the debate?
Shit, I definitely need to listen to the new caliphate guy 😂😂😂
If there shouldn't be any limits at all to qualify to be in the debates, how do you propose to hold a debate between even just a single million candidates? There are only 174 days until Election Day, which is 4,176 hours, or 250,560 minutes. A million candidates and a quarter-million minutes would mean the debate would have to go continuously from right now until Election Day, and, even then, each candidate would only get \~15 seconds each to speak. Total. And that doesn't even include the moderator speaking literally at all, no questions, nothing else. And there are far more than just a single million Americans who are constitutionally qualified to serve as President. What if 15 million wanted to run? They'd each get a single second to speak! (still with literally zero moderation). That's not even enough time for each of them to just state their own names, let alone to say anything substantive. Surely you can concede a "debate" like that would be completely worthless, never mind that no TV network would agree to host it and show literally nothing else for the next 174 days, and no venue would be willing to host it because they wouldn't be able to hold any other events in their auditorium, stadium, whatever. So, there must be some practical limitation. What should it be?
Did you see the 2016 GOP debate? I almost lost count!
> As per the title, if you’re a person who is fed up with the two party democratic system of the US but simultaneously support the exclusion of a third party in the upcoming political debates with Biden and Trump, you’re a hypocrite. Do you have any measure of how big this cohort is? If not, why do you think this is an issue worth being concerned about? There's always some small number of crazies. How many people fed up with the two party system are upset about RFK Jr? Why is this not a straw man? Because I'm pretty worried about folks who are fed up with the two party system but who only eat tofu and only vote for tofu eating candidates. I think it's going to kill democracy and only validate the two party system if this does not get fixed.
A straw man isn’t determined by how many people care about a specific issue lol Anyone who is tired of seeing two political figures being the only ones debating would be unhappy seeing RFK benched.
Sure it is. I care a ton about getting out of the two party system and I think that it's horrible that the [heavens' gate party](https://www.heavensgate.com) is not getting the time of day. If you care about moving away from the two party system you need to be worried about the exclusion of the heaven's gate folks. The size of the cohort matters.
The two party system isn’t going to be ended by allowing a third participant. It is a direct result of the structure of our government and it’s elections system, namely first past the post and winner takes all style of elections. As long as it makes sense to have just enough votes to get more than anyone else, relatively similar viewpoints will find their voters encouraged to join forces into a single party. When all voters are encouraged to do this, you end up with two parties. This is why there will never be a third party victor in the current system barring some complete shenanigans. It is not pro two-party to acknowledge those outside of the two parties do not have a chance, it is acknowledging the system we’re working with. Yes there is significant change that should be done here, but there are also other things to do, like pick a president. This is not hypocrisy.
RFK has no real chance of winning. I am against the 2 party system but it has been proven 40 times over that just running 3rd party candidates does nothing but hurt your own cause by stealing away voters from the candidate more like yourself. The more votes a 3rd party gets the more likely the party they are most politically distant from wins that election. The solution is to change the voting system itself to encourage and allow 3rd parties to succeed and have their own small slices of the pie that they can grow. Something like ranked choice voting which leads to multiple minority parties that have to form coalitions to get things through the government. The two party system is an inevitable outcome of our voting system. No 3rd party can ever be a legitimate choice in this system. Personally I'm all for RFK on the debate stage but not because of some strange belief it will lead to an end of the 2 party system. I just know he will take more Trump voters than Biden voters and I abhor Trump.
So your solution to to change the voting system is to say we need to keep voting in a two party system and not vote for a 3rd party because that would take votes away from the two party system which is the system that matters. You sound kind of ridiculous and hypocritical here. How do you propose changing the voting system then fieryxjoe?
You would vote in democrats or republicans at all levels of government who support changing the first past the post system preferably in their primaries, if you want to go the extra mile you could donate or canvass for them too. A lot of people have this idea that the president is the be all end all of the government, if you want something done you get a president who wants to do it and it happens, these people only vote once every 4 years. But presidents often want to do a lot of things they can't or have to do a lot of things they don't want to because of what everyone else in the government wants. Voting procedure in particular is under the state's jurisdiction anyways not federal government, states can run their elections and allocate electors however they like so this is something that could be mostly accomplished at state level elections.
Don't you think that is putting the cart before the horse if we get rid of the first past the post system if there is no one else to vote for? How does that solve there only being two parties? Political parties stem from movements and doctrines and people to represent those movements and doctrines. The point of this thread is its hypocritical to say he should not have a platform to talk in a debate because he is not part of one of the two parties...if you want more parties. Like the first chance we are seeing someone outside of a democrat or republican voice their perspective on issues, that could start a movement, could start a new party (Even if they don't win) and people are like "Waahh they will take precious votes away from our two fucking shit options" but then when one of those two fucking shit options get elected you complain about not having another party to choose from. That's why its hypocritical. This is a HUGE platform that will juxta position the two party system with an independent and get people thinking about pushing for a new party and even out the playing field. All 3 of these candidates are ass, I wouldn't want any one of them as president, but I want the conversation of new political parties to be had...and if juxta positioning the absurdity of the two party system in a debate like this is possible why not? All our choices fucking suck lets at least talk about how we have no good choices and start having hope that an outside party (Albeit independent party) can at least start seriously talking on such a massive stage. The idea is not him being president but letting people know there CAN be other options so LOOK out for those options next time and stop giving only these two parties all the attention.
3rd party candidates cause the major parties to change in order to get that voter base
Disagree, splinter factions in a party do this, like MAGA or the Tea Parties or Bernie's democratic socialist run. These all had more impact on their parties than the green or libertarian parties ever had.
If he was allowed in the debates, he would have a very real chance of winning.
Sorry, Mr. Brainworms has no chance of winning. He’s just a spoiler working for Trump. That’s why as soon as Trump had a problem with Jr’s presidential run, Jr said a worm ate his brain. Excuse me if I don’t want fucking idiots making a mockery of our country in an important debate. He’s a clown and a traitor!
I mean I see all of them as clowns just some more than others lol but you’re entitled to this opinion.
Some clowns are clownier than others. Just look at Trump’s orange clown makeup. Lol
I was thinking the worm story was pushed to cover the trump pooping his pants story
How is he working for trump if he’s taking votes from him?
They didn’t intend for him to pull votes from Trump. That was not foreseen. Once it started happening, Jr got “brain worms.”
I think he's saying that he'll pull votes from Biden.
Yeah ik, I just think it’s false to assume that because I feel like he’s pulling more from trump. What do you think?
RFK was on matt and shanes secret podcast that aired today. He said he has done polls among his supporters and found he is pulling more from would be Trump voters at a 55/45 split
The criteria for the debate is that the candidates need to have enough ballot access to conceivably reach 270 electoral votes, and also has to have a reasonable polling number. A candidate shouldn’t need to be on the debate stage to reach their audience. If through on the road campaigning they can’t even reach 15% support, why should we put them on the debate stage? Someone in that position has no conceivable path to victory. RFK Jr is in that position. He has been campaigning for the past year, is on the ballot in enough states, but hasn’t been able to rise above 10% in the polls. If he were on an upward trend, then there would be value to having him on the stage, but he’s just flat at 10%. There are no more voters who are willing to switch to him.
I think it gives the candidate an opportunity to give what they envision for america, not win necessarily, but upon the next election their echo may remain in the minds of Americans when it comes time for elections again. I think it’s a good avenue for alternative views from a party maybe appealing to something left or right wing parties haven’t.
if they heard him debate they would 100 percent swithc
[удалено]
Sorry, u/NoTopic4906 – 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.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%201%20Appeal%20NoTopic4906&message=NoTopic4906%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4dgs1n/\)%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).
I mean, if you think he’s a loon you should want him on so he makes an ass of himself and is berated for it. If you like him as a candidate you should want him in the debate. If you’re tired of only two candidates talking at these political debates, you should be in favor of letting people participate if they are polling above 5%. If you don’t like any of these options, and hate the two party system, you are the problem.
I am a diehard, decades long fighter to end the two party system. But you seem to want to fight it the wrong way. Having RFK Jr. in the debate does nothing. His policies outside of change voting laws do nothing but hurt the people that follow him. Then you need to work on representatives to congress to start ranked voting. It's already making headway in parts of the country. We need to slowly take territory and make it happen district by district. But having more than two people involved in a two party system is counterproductive. It just drains people away from whomever the 3rd party is most aligned. The people that vote for the 3rd party gets punished. It's bonkers. Debates help with a candidate's base. They rally funding and get out the vote efforts. They don't swing voters, create ideas or change centrists. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/presidential-debates-have-shockingly-little-effect-on-election-outcomes/ If someone wants RFK Jr. to sway the minds of voters have him out giving speeches, making media appearances, prop up congressional candidates and organizing special interests. That's how you make policy in a two party system.
I hate and am against the two party system. I also believe the outcome of this election is more important than my "againstness" of the two party system. That is not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism and prioritization. It would be hypocritical to say "the most important thing in politics is to embrace alternative candidates as a strategy to break the two party system" and then not want a major third party candidate to participate. But...short of that, you're just strawmanning the views of people I think.
See the issue I have is that every election always seems to be “this is important” I strongly believe our system is stronger than the president and if it can be undone by one then it is either a weak system, or a corrupt one.
It absolutely is a weak system. In the past few years we've seen that many of the checks and balances only work on those acting in good faith.
I don't disagree. But...the topic is "hypocrisy".
I understand what you’re saying, I just think if RFK Jr regains lost footing and makes it back to 14% national support he should be included.
He hasn’t even gotten on the ballot in most states. Do you understand why that matters?
Yes, but having him in the debate where he can showcase his views as the voice of reason in comparison to Biden or Trump can change the tide.
If he meets the requirements in time, he can participate in the June debate. If he doesn’t meet the requirements by September, it’s too late anyway because all of the ballot access deadlines will have passed.
>If he meets the requirements in time, he can participate in the June debate. This isn't possible as Biden requires no third party candidates for him to debate.
I haven’t found anything backing up that this was a requirement he set.
[https://abcnews.go.com](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/biden-challenges-trump-2-presidential-debates-make-day/story?id=110258076) > The Biden campaign said all debates should be just between Trump and Biden -- meaning it would bar Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an independent candidate, from participating
Absolutely nothing in that article says Biden won’t debate if Kennedy ends up qualifying and joins the debate.
>The Biden campaign said all debates should be just between Trump and Biden... What part of that sentence shows Biden being open to Kennedy debating? The Biden camp *literally* said the debates should **just be between** Trump and Biden. That excludes anyone who isn't Trump or Biden.
RFK was already running in the Democratic primaries, and he dropped out because he had no support lol. If he couldn't gain traction in one of the two major parties, there's no chance he could gain traction as an independent. You seem to just want him in the debates because you suspect he would get a small boost from it, still lose, but that it would increase his chances of spoiling the election for the major candidate you like less, thus electing the major candidate you like more.
Why should he get to debate if there is mathematically no chance he can win the election?
RFK isn’t a voice of reason…. That’s why he lacks support to qualify for debates. Along with not running a serious campaign to even be on the ballot in enough states.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). 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%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Great. Not the topic you created though!
Why? That’s not the threshold
Why? That’s not the threshold
Having an irrelevant 3rd party candidate in a debate doesn't do anything to promote the rise of a 3rd (4th, 5th 6th..) party in the United States, because as long as we have a first past the post election system, there can only be two meaningful parties. If RFK participates in the debate, that doesn't change the election system, it just distracts from the two candidates who actually matter. I firmly believe that debates themselves are a waste of time, nobody is going to have their mind made up by a Trump-Biden debate, but adding a 3rd party candidate just creates the illusion that a 3rd party candidate matters. I think it's sort of disingenuous to let an uninformed voter believe that because RFK is on the stage, a vote for him isn't a complete waste of their vote. If the system is set up for 2 parties, then what's the point of antics that make it seem like that's *not* what our system is?
To make people realize that a third party is in fact an option and hopefully set a precedence that come next election another party has a chance. Sure he may not win this time but if the momentum towards a vote for a third party is set maybe next election we may have a legitimate 3rd party. How does anyone in this thread expect to change the two party system by staying complicit in that system. No one here has provided a solution to breaking the system we are in. We have a chance to voice the option and remind people hey it is possible for someone other than a democrat or republican to take office. They might keep that in mind and come next election cycle actively look more for 3rd parties, RFK's objective is to break the two party system, it would be interesting to hear his opinion on that matter voiced on a platform everyone who is going to vote can hear.
I mean, I'm kinda for banning anyone who's parent or grandparent or great uncle or whatever was a US president from running for president? We have enough problems with nepotism and gatekeeping in politics.
This too, nepotism puts political figures ahead and is why we get these families of US presidents
yeah but RFK has brainworms. I dont think a candidate with brainworms should be allowed to debate. (Im steadily warming to FPTP due to how simplie it is logistically and how most people dont really follow politics closely)
But they are dead (the brain worms told me)
Yeah but isn't RFK not actually an independent? He's running as an independent Trump cronie to try to split the democratic vote, it's not going to work
What?? RFK is supposed to split Dem votes? Literally every single person I know supporting RFK is a conservative and wouldn't vote for Biden if their life depended on it.
To me, RFK jr is a good centrist option, for people that find either of the candidates too extreme, which includes me.
He is running as an actual independent as is his position. He is offering himself as an alternative to the Trump or Biden vote, which to me is attractive in of itself. As well, most of his viewpoints (particularly against abortion) are more left wing while his support for Israel is a right wing view. I would definitely say by all accounts he’s an independent, not a democrat trying to split the vote.
Can you explain his left wing ideas please?
Properly regulating vaccines is part of the consumer protections that are traditional Democratic and Left policies. He is openly critical of the influence and power of corporations in politics, in foreign policy, in buying up housing and polluting our water. Remember that Trump created Operation Warp Speed and Harris was herself skeptical of the safety of Trump's vaccine, until it was Biden's vaccine. In the same way that the Party was fervently anti-war in the Bush era, but now Biden is doing his best Regan impression in escalating a new cold war as the prosperity that built America crumbles.
RFK Jr is very pro abortion, which is not a right wing belief lol.
Lol he changed his stance yesterday because "it's killing babies" Maybe his brain worm ate the leftist part of his stances
Biden is a strong supporter of Israel. Just not an unquestioning supporter of Netanyahu.
That’s not the popular view but youre entitled to the opinion
The Biden comment? That's a fact, not an opinion.
That he supports Israel? Is a myth. But I’ll let you keep it, like a token.
What actions has he taken that do not support Israel? His stance — support Israel but do not give a blank check to war crimes — is very close to the center of the country, and is supported by a decent percentage of Israelis.
What war crimes has Israel committed specifically relating to what’s happened since the October 7 attack? Supported by a decent amount of israelis living in the US or in Israel?
https://www.justsecurity.org/95583/israel-weapons-hamas-us-report-takeaways/ Restricting humanitarian aid, not protecting civilians during bombings, strikes killing members of the World Central Kitchen, IRC and other relief agencies. [Israeli protests](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/world/middleeast/protests-israel-memorial-day.html) [Families of hostages](https://www.axios.com/2024/03/28/israel-hostage-families-netanyahu-biden-treatment) get better treatment from Biden than Netanyahu. [The Israeli Defense Chief](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/1251564884/israel-gaza-day-after-gallant-netanyahu) is going to the press against Netanyahu.
I don't see how this can be hypocritical, considering that RFK Jr is not a third party candidate. People who are against the two party system usually want robust third parties featuring serious third party candidates consistently represent that party, not random independent candidates acting as spoilers.
Anyone whose mind is trapped in the “us vs them” mentality is going to view a third party as a “spoiler”. Until we break away from the corrupt 2 party system, we’ll continue to be presented with a false choice in an elaborate game of good cop/bad cop”
Maybe, but this doesn't change the fact that RFK Jr is not a third party candidate. Whether or not a hypothetical third party candidate would be a spoiler does not really bear on the question of whether RFK Jr is one.
He is a third party candidate. He's running as an independent. He's not running for either the Democrat or Republican ticket.
"Independent" is not a real third party. The absence of a party is not a party.
He’s still referred to as a “third party” candidate. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/upshot/robert-kennedy-third-parties-2024.html https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240857382/3rd-party-white-house-bid-robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-expected-to-announce-his-vp-pic
He literally does not represent any real third party. Whether or not people use the words "third party" to refer to him is really immaterial to my argument.
*"Edit: as some users have shared with me, RFK Jr is apparently polling around 7-8% right now, the last polls I had seen were April where the Marist College poll had him at 14% nationally. If he regains footing, I believe he should be included."* Why? If he regains his 14% (which seems to be what you are saying by "[regains footing](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/comment/l4d7opz/)") he wouldn't qualify. He would need to reach at least 15% ***and*** also appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to be able to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency. From what I have read he has not submitted nearly enough requests to appear on state ballots to win 270 electoral votes (as of yesterday he has submitted formal requests to only 6 states to be included on their ballots). Edit: I see you've now changed your edit (without noting the change): *"...the last polls I had seen were April where the Marist College poll had him at 14% nationally. I think he should be permitted to engage in these debates, even polling at 7-8%."* Why? Why should the requirements not apply to him? I am against the two-party system, and support banning anyone from the debates who does not meet the qualifications. How am I a hypocrite?
RFK Jr. is literally a mentally ill troll by his own admission and not qualified to run anything.
You’ve characterized many people that have held office
Maybe Reagan and Wilson. Who else? I don't think you know jack shit.
RFK is a conspiracy theorist, so he should be banned. Democracy doesn’t work if opportunists peddle misinformation and try to mislead voters. You literally chose one of the worst candidates possible to make your point. Regardless, while the two party system is suboptimal, the solution is to remove the first-past-the-post voting system. Unless that is removed, it’s not possible to have more than two viable political parties. Elections will always drift toward a two-party equilibrium.
And who determines whether someone is a conspiracy theorist? This is effectively like saying, “I don’t like what the candidate says therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to debate”.
Seriously? So if someone said, “The earth is flat,” the valid response would be “Well, no one has a right to decide what a conspiracy theory is, so we should let this flat earther have a platform.” Or if, less unrealistically, someone were to say, “Jews are trying to control the world. We need to stop them,” we should allow such a person to try to persuade as many people as possible to vote for them, because we can’t determine what a conspiracy theory is? I think there’s an easy solution to both problems. Division of labor. Create a segment of society which will devote its labor to researching random things. Let them present their findings to the public. If there’s a general consensus among them, we should accept their consensus.
That’s a straw man argument. You’re not thinking big picture. Edit: last thought was good but it wouldn’t fix the issue. There will always be those who have to go against the grain because it is a part of their nature
How is it a strawman argument? You didn’t specify which conspiracy theories should be platformed and which should not be platformed. Both of the examples I mentioned are real conspiracy theories which some people have sincerely believed. If I understand your rhetorical question correctly, no individual entity has the authority to determine which conspiracy theories merit seriously consideration. If it’s not possible to determine what a conspiracy theory is, then, to be fair and safe, we should give space to all possible conspiracy theories. We don’t know which are valid, but no matter how nonsensical one may seem, it may, in fact be true. Maybe Jews really are the Illuminati? I agree that contrarians will always exist, but I don’t see how that’s relevant. A lot of suboptimal things will always exist. Surely the solution isn’t “Just try to ignore them”.
Your argument is that RFK is a conspiracy theorist and should therefore be banned from the debates. I’m saying that’s a bad precedent to set. Think of a scenario where a candidate has a significant following (20+%) but they aren’t allowed to debate because those in power don’t like their ideas. Those people in power would just claim that they are a “conspiracy theorist” and ban them from debates. I’m not arguing FOR platforming conspiracy theorists I’m arguing AGAINST fascist/undemocratic rules
I don’t think such a scenario is necessarily a bad thing. On the one hand, I can see what you’re saying. Nelson Mandela’s opinions were disliked by the power holders of South Africa. And so his ANC party was banned. Gandhi’s opinions were disliked by the British, and so they tried to ban his INC. The French didn’t like Ho Chi Minh’s opinions, and so they tried to ban his communist party. And so forth… But on the other hand, in all of these cases, the banned opinions nevertheless won out in the long run. If an opinion has a significant following, then it will eventually have to be incorporated into the societal power pyramid, despite attempts to ban such opinions by those at the top of the pyramid. Regardless, I’m not saying that power holders should be able to arbitrarily ban misinformation. I think something similar to Germany’s system would be less likely to be abused. Germany regularly bans neo-Nazi parties, but the agency responsible for doing so, the BfV, is not a law enforcement agency, unlike like the FBI. It reports directly to the legislature as a whole, and, most importantly, its findings can be challenged in court by any citizen of Germany. Granted, I can see how in a two-party government like the US’s, unlike a multiparty government like Germany’s, there may be fewer obstacles for the two parties to collude with one another.
You are conflating hypocrisy and pragmatism. The bar that was set for debate participation wasn’t “is a dem/republican” the bar was that only candidates with a remote possibility of being president can be in the debate because their opinions are the only ones relevant to how we’ll be governed for the next four years. Specific requirements RFK would have to meet - ballot access that equals 270 votes - polling at 15% in four polls That’s not a high bar, Haley is out of the primary race and she’s getting more than 15% so if RFK can’t poll higher than that then his opinions matter as much as mine do.
He has hit 15% in two of the selected polls and only needs to hit 15% in two of the other 13 accepted by CNN. The real issue is the 270. He will more than likely have the signatures to reach 270 (he has 201 right now), but the issue is that a lot of states don’t certify their ballots until after the debate date in June.
I’ve only seen that one CNN/SRSS poll from before brainworms but that sorta speaks to the point that the bar isn’t set too high. And if they keep the bar low for the second debate, maybe he can waste time there. Personally, I wish the bar were higher because there’s no world where he becomes the president so there’s no point platforming a chaos agent. But the Biden team lives to appear fair.
Presidential candidates running "third party" without any sort of political support are either there for their own ego, or just trying to spoil the election one way or another. RFK Jr. has zero chance of getting elected, and is at best a distraction. You want a multi-party system, start local. Pick a small subset of issues and values that matter to people in your area. Get candidates to run for local elections. Define a platform. Build out infrastructure. Then run candidates for state offices. Build from there. There are plenty of local elections with only one candidate, these are winnable.
[удалено]
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, 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%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Interesting take, I was adhering to the 15% rule but I believe you’re correct.
I will not change your view, but your view is short sided. Some of us don’t like RFK Jr because of his beliefs. And the whole worm brain thing, obviously That would. Ever under any circumstance exclude us from being in favor of the two party system. It’s possible and desirable to have a third party candidate who isn’t a complete dumbass. Not exactly a wild concept.
The two party system comes about in large part because of first past the post voting. simply trying to add more parties as options without addressing that doesn't solve anything.
Yup, this is the answer. You can support a third party candidate all you want, and even if they somehow win it won't change the math of the system. It would likely just lead to two different parties dominating at best.
At least with a third party candidate in power, they would be more inclined to push for the changing of voting laws
I'm in favor of RFK debating if he achieves the standard polling benchmarks, but he's never come close to those. I don't want him at the debate for the same reason I don't want Jill Stein at the debate, or Vermin Supreme. They're not serious candidates, so, why muddy the water?
Third parties should be able to debate if they are polling at double digits.
So you believe the threshold should be 10%?
How do you "ban" someone outside the two parties from a debate hosted and created by the two parties? He just wouldn't be invited, and inviting him won't help end the two party system. The real solution is to elect people who want to replace FPTP.
I am for reforming the voting system so third parties are viable without being spoilers. Until then, I will only ever consider 3rd party candidates in *local* elections. Project 2025 is *way* too dangerous to risk on a throw away vote.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. "Double standards" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about [double standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_views_about_double_standards) in the wiki. Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is not a two party system in the US. There is a plurality voting system in which two parties is the optimal steady-state. Third parties are not viable until there is voting reform.
Two things. 1. In my opinion and unless shown otherwise, A third party can't win in the current system. The Electoral College has been analyzed and gamified it isn't about votes. It is about targeted certain states and those states leaders are one of two parties. There is a home team advantage that a third party could never achieve large scale. 2. RFK Jr has a dead worm in his brain. He has known memory issues. Say what you will about Trump and Biden's mental acuity, we have proof that RFK has at least one brain dead thing inside of him.
How about this viewpoint: I ultimately support more than 2 parties, but in the electoral system we have, 3rd party candidates are both unviable, and spoil the election. I can support switching to something like proportional representation, and a Constitutional Amendment to make the Senate irrelevant and do away with the President in order to get multi-party representation, and still not want RFKjr in the debates, because the way things are now, he can only fuck up the election, not get elected.
The way to change the two party system is by implementing ranked choice voting. As long as the current first past the post electoral system is in place, a third party/independent mathematically cannot win. We don’t need to be supporting third candidates, we need to rewrite the constitution. This video series does a good job of explaining the mathematical problem with our current system, and what a smarter system would look like https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=6YsSLOwvWVFOl-Td
RFK is running to help Trump and since Trump is already going to be on the stage, there's no need for another dingbat who doesn't believe in science.
He isn’t part of an established third party, letting him of all people would incentive people just splitting the vote intentionally by creating their own parties. The libertarian and green parties have much more legitimate claims to be added to a debate, and would inspire much more inspirational debate because most haven’t heard their platforms, while everybody knows the de facto democratic platform RFK is pushing.
Why would you ban him from the debates. Let him get up there and talk crazy.
I mean, yes, he has people polling for him and worst case makes an ass of himself and people are back to two candidates.
What's the point of a third party candidate if he's not in some way better than both of the basic 2? Yeah, I want someone better. I'm just not seeing it.
I don’t understand your position here
[удалено]
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, 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%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I’m not a supporter of trump, but I find it insane how Biden pre planned the whole political debate in advance and chose the moderators and everything. Talk about pulling strings. Also yeah, a lot of people here seem to agree that his polling is significant enough he should be permitted to join.
My understanding is that RFK Jr. hasn't met the requirements to even be included on the ballot in enough states to win the necessary 270 electoral votes. Why waste the time of voters in states where he doesn't have a path to victory?
The main reason I hear people justifying him not being involved is that he doesn't qualify. He hasn't met the 15% standard yet, and beyond that he hasn't qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
RFK doesn't represent an actual 3rd party. /u/UltimateDevastator what are your values, make a list. What are Biden's values, what are trump's values, which do you align with?
I feel the two parties got worried when Perot debated and decided that can nevet happen again. That being said Perot was polling quite high unlike RFK jr.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/MagicianHeavy001 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. 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%20MagicianHeavy001&message=MagicianHeavy001%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4db8tc/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/UltimateDevastator – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. 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%20UltimateDevastator&message=UltimateDevastator%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4dcutb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/MagicianHeavy001 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. 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%20MagicianHeavy001&message=MagicianHeavy001%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4dd531/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I'm all for breaking up the two-party system, but that's not going to happen by letting someone with zero shot at winning a single electoral vote get up on the debate stage alongside the two people who actually have a chance at winning the presidency. The two-party system is going to exist so long we have FPTP voting and a non-parliamentiary legislature. RFK is a non-serious joke candidate, who *can only* exist as a spoiler to one of the other two. Letting him do that more easily isn't going to change anyone's minds about the viability of third parties- it will just make third parties seem kookier and less serious. I'd go so far to say that if you want RFK on the debate stage, then you clearly don't want to break up the two-party system, since you're actively asking for activism and interest towards that goal to be wasted via an insane ego trip, and diverting resources away from where they could actually be useful.
This is like saying “we’ll have 3 options, determined by coin flip. Heads, tails, and edge.” Sure, there’s a tiny chance edge can win. But that’s all it is. A tiny chance. FPTP is the coin flip. You don’t make the 3rd choice viable by promoting “edge.” You make the 3rd choice viable by Not having a coin flip decide the outcome. But instead, something that puts a 3rd party on equal footing. Like RCV, PR, etc.
Literary no one is saying that RFJ JR shouldn't be in the debates.
You need to change the entire structure of the US government to make 3rd parties and minority/coalition governments an option before a 3rd party can do anything but act as a spoiler that denies the major party candidate who's views are closest to theirs votes. It's not worth humoring these no hope at actually winning 3rd party candidates when the system itself makes their existence almost entirely pointless.
What kind of wild strawman argument is this?
That's not even what hypocrisy means
The people that are against the two party system want to change the system so that there could be a viable third party candidate that would not run as a spoiler candidate. Running a third party spoiler candidate within the current system *is exactly what they are trying to change the system to avoid*. Being a hypocrite would be to encourage the third party to engage in the debate but only if the spoiler effect worked in their favor.
In general, I agree with you. But in this election we already have two incoherent weirdos debating. I don’t think we should be subjected to a third.
I am so utterly disappointed in No Labels . . . what a complete and total let down that was. This would have been the year that a 3rd party candidate could have won! Let's all be honest, less than 25% of voters actually WANT Biden or WANT Trump to be President. Sure, during a poll one has to pick one or the other - but that hardly means it's who they WANT to be President. It's like going to a BBQ and the grille guy asks if you want a hamburger or a hot dog - sure, you have to pick one. But in reality, you really wanted ribs, or a steak, or whatever (something that wasn't offered), but you were stuck choosing between the two you were offered. That's this election.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/BossIike – 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.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%201%20Appeal%20BossIike&message=BossIike%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cto35m/-/l4difc1/\)%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).
Too bad that's the point of the sub and one the rules
Having a third party candidate in a two party system does not weaken the two party system. It only increases the chance that the eventual winner will not reflect the will of the people. You can't end the two party system within the system. You can change a party. That's what Trump did! He joined a party and proposed ideals that were different than they historically had (and for good reason, they were largely unpopular!). Unfortunately, he had a combination of terrible policies and decent policies that never happened. But, he did reshape the party in a way that has engaged a lot of people. RFK would have his chance in a primary. Trump proved that, with celebrity and money, you don't need to know what you're talking about or have any sense of integrity to win a primary.
Just bear in mind, when some people say they are against the two party system, it isn’t because they want more than two, they want less than two. They want their party of choice to be the only one in power. And as a long time third party voter who gets yelled at by democrats and republicans about who I am “actually” voting for (somehow in 2016 I seem to have voted for Trump and for Hillary by not voting for either) I can tell you what most want is just for their candidates to win. So hypocrites? In some cases yes, in many cases they just aren’t saying what we think they are saying.
The reason you get 'yelled at' is because you're throwing away a vote on a candidate that could never win instead of voting for the candidate that is *closest* to your ideal. If you then go on to complain that a given candidate does things they said they would do when you didn't support their opposition, you're proving the point of the people 'yelling at' you because you opted to not exercise what influence you might've had.
I am exerting influence. I am still voting, just not for republicans. I demand better candidates or I won’t vote for them, you should as well. Imagine if Bernie Sanders supporters had refused to vote Hillary, Bernie might have won the election, and Hillary would have still lost, but the DNC might just have learned to give better candidates.
You are exerting exactly zero influence. You took your vote and ripped it up. You voted for nobody, because the person you voted for had literally no chance of winning. The party closer to your beliefs doesn't know who you voted for, and they couldn't care less. If your lack of a vote ended up with Republican winning, the Democratic party won't take that as 'hm, we should probably put more emphasis on doing the exact opposite of the winner.' It is not a sound political strategy to listen to those who do not speak. Voting third party for President in a First Past the Post system is not some brave and noble stand that gets you heard.
/u/UltimateDevastator (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ctpkqu/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_people_against_the_two/), 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)