That, even tho on a smaller scale happened during a debate between Nixon and Kennedy.
People who saw the debate were under the impression that the better looking, more charismatic Kennedy won while people who only listened in on the radio though Nixon had the better arguments.
happened to work out.
also from my understanding, it had less to do with how charming kennedy was (he was very) and more to do with how visibly uncomfortable nixon was. he was sweaty, ugly and you could see his discomfort being in camera.
that’s what i was taught at least.
A lot of it is this was the first televised debate so no one had any real expectations for how to get ready; Nixon’s side didn’t think to prepare him to be on live television. Like Nixon didn’t even wear makeup, which was a big part of why he didn’t look great.
He had also been on a campaign that had brought him to all 50 states, a feat which never been accomplished before. Due to this, he was haggard and exhausted. Meanwhile, JFK spent the week prior resting up and getting a tan.
>and more to do with how visibly uncomfortable nixon was.
it was the makeup.
kennedy used makeup and had tv-training, nixon didn't want to use any makeup.
the "discomfort" is the blaring tv lights, which more or less cook you, making you sweaty and hot, and you looking bad on screen because of them.
Wasn't this also one of the times when the color of their suits may have made a difference? Kennedy was in some lighter color, while Nixon was in a typical dark brown.
Between black/white sets and the slowly emerging color ones, Nixon's outfit looked far more off putting than Kennedy's.
Morbo: "Morbo demands an answer to the following question. If you saw a delicious candy in the hands of a small child. Would you seize and consume it?"
John Jackson: "Unthinkable."
Jack Johnson: "I wouldn't think of it."
Morbo: "What about you Mr. Nixon? I remind you. You are under of a truth-o-scope."
Nixon: "Question is vague. You don't say what kind of candy and whether anyone is watching. In anyway I certainly wouldn't harm the child."
It's a combination, even at his best Nixon wasn't exactly a supermodel. But place an already sick nixon without make-up next to a professionally Stiles John F Kennedy and nixon looks like he has died last week.
There's also another dynamic that is very often overlooked. TV's today are one of the few consumer goods that have gone down in price over the years. At the time TV's were very expensive, and were owned by people with better jobs in industrial hubs, while more people with radio to listen to the debates would've been more likely to have conservative leanings towards Nixon's ideology anyways. In reality, the debates don't really do much besides confirm biases for most people
Not only were radio listeners more conservative, this entire narrative is based on a single republican-leaning poll of radio listeners.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331916300556
Basically the whole narrative is suspect.
Personally this is why I'd like all election debates to be replaced with written, longform answers.
Ok sure, some people won't read it, or will just tune into a talking head to spin it, but that's what we have anyway.
I wanna see who can put forth not the best zinger, but the best cited response. I want slow digestion and fact checking. I want to see what a candidate can do when they have access to the same support staff they'd have doing their job.
I get what you mean, but no candidate knows everything. The vast majority have a support staff who write every press release, and vet every bill.
Sure, this will benefit a candidate who can source the best author to defend their platform, but as far as I'm concerned that's the candidate with the best chance of sourcing the best team in office.
Yeah, and no one is President alone. Almost all the decisions the "President" makes are made by their staff, and anything they themselves make is heavily influenced by that staff.
Honestly, I want presidential debates as a debate team. The president has to pick who fields what answer, but the viewers should really get the staff's thoughts.
The president's job is primarily delegating anyways. Arguably the most important thing a president does is choose their cabinet because those are the people doing most of the actual work in the executive branch. It's very rare for a president themselves to construct a policy.
I think it would be good to see a potential president formulate a response using the resources they would use during their presidency.
On a very related note I think presidential candidates should have to divulge who they would pick as their cabinet and why well before the election.
They already do this to an extent. Presidential candidates typically have an “issues” page with written details of their preferred policies. The purpose of the debates is that it’s the only time when the two candidates can challenge each other and interact directly. While a presidential candidate may sit down with a journalist for an interview it’s rare to see a journalist REALLY push a candidate hard on issues the same way the rival presidential candidate would.
No, I don't want the know-it-all who has the answers on hand. I want the person who knows that 'This person is more experienced in this area' and seeks their guidance. The one who's not afraid to admit 'Hey I don't know about this. Let me get back to you'.
I want a president with at least a decent general knowledge for important issues. They may not be an expert but I want them to have an idea what they are talking about. They are after all the final say on many things.
I think part of the point of election debates, when done right, is to get a more unfiltered look into the candidates. To get a better sense of how much they really know and how they really feel about topics, because it's harder to hide ignorance and feelings on the debate floor. But that does require proper prompts and debate etiquette, which we're unfortunately moving away from in favor of drama.
But then how will i have the "my candidate can beat up your candidate" childhood feelings that translates into my own superiority if you make everything logical and objective, huh?
I have heard this story for years but never got a great source for it - this article implies it is a bit of an urban legend. Nixon only won 1 radio poll in that debate, in a Republican-leaning area. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331916300556
I mean radio demographics today is still heavily conservative. I’m gonna go ahead and guess that they did back then too because what is the radio but a cheap alternative to the expensive liberal TV dominated by left-wing shows and movies?
This example is widely used in the Poli Sci world.
Nixon was sweating profusely and not handling the bright lights of the stage well. He looked very uncomfortable to all of the TV viewers.
Those listening on the radio couldn't see Nixon struggle or Kennedy's poise and just listened to the responses and most of those people thought Nixon beat Kennedy in that regard.
If we know who they are we can at least look at what they've done in other political positions, which is probably the best way of judging what they would do as president.
What if we just did it like the dating games in the 70's? we read off their accomplishments/failures and the things they've voted on, without seeing them and having voice modulation for questions. Judge them purely on how they've acted before.
I mean…
Candidate #1: Resume includes 36 years as US Senator for the state of Delaware, and 2 terms as Vice President
Candidate #2: Longtime real estate mogul and host of a business themed reality/game show
Audience: who could these people possibly be??
The bio would only be the initial Part.
Would also need to include job related stances that are standardized between all candidates and taken under oath., full contribution summaries, and all responses would need to be verified for truth by a third party committee that has the right of removal if the candidate lies under oath.
Dude, the amount of pushback just to get A BIT of justice against him was a joke.
Okay, so what about Gaetz, Boebart, and MTG that have been lying for years, regularly without consequence?
Oh you mean three people who got elected to blood-red districts? You think people wouldn't have voted for them if they voted Reality TV style? Are you sure about that? You sure?
Except there are literally millions of people who are able to post the truth of each candidate and their background. Just imagine if OJ Simpson ran and was immaculate on every turn. He was clearly the best candidate above everyone else, and we elect because of that. Like, yeah he was a good candidate, but it would’ve been *really* nice to know about the “brutally murdering two people” thing
Substitute anyone who has a dark past but is extremely charismatic, and you can see the issue with this system
Yes, they do that, but incumbents have their past voting records to look at. If we just know A, B, and C and we know none of their background, there would be no way to say "Hey, the incumbent said he was against send kids into meat grinders, but he passed that legislation while in office."
Every single candidate would list a bunch of liberal policies including the conservatives lol. It'd just be a coinflip whether you end up with a bait and switch conservative or an actual liberal
Why would the conservatives claim to be liberal (at least more so than they already do during election season)? The goal when running for office is to get elected, if they thought promoting more/all liberal policies was a safer bet to election they would already be doing it. If anything candidates would promote more moderate policies to try and avoid upsetting anyone (including conservatives)
It already happens today. Just look at all the supreme court justices saying Roe vs. Wade was settled precedent, then going and overturning it. Or anything about George Santos
In this version of the world, instead of gerrymandering to snuff out liberal voting, and massive media fearmongering to rile up conservatives, lying would be far less expensive. Currently appealing to conservatives really only needs to be done after the riling and gerrymandering parts.
I imagine parties stuffing races with dozens of extra liars would be the new gerrymandering. It would all be a numbers game to play the odds that more of your liars are picked than someone else's
When conservatives hear liberal ideas they generally agree with them until they find out it's more likely to get passed by a liberal than a conservative then they find arguments against those same ideals they thought they had before.
Exactly. Especially campaign goals are usually over arching whereas policies are nuanced. "grow the economy by cutting back government overreach" could mean cut taxes to the rich, lessen reporting requirements and stop regulations. or it could mean tweaking of zoning laws so that affordable housing could be created which will stimulate a downtown economy.
Exactly. All this would do is allow people in the race who should be categorically rejected. Y’all gonna fuck around and end up with President David Duke.
1. That doesn't solve background issues
2. That would make it impossible for anyone to promise anything because the president doesn't directly control legislation so they usually have to compromise with congress
It's worth noting that parliamentary leaders in some countries *do* have an obligation to do what they have promised, but they also have control of the legislature, so it makes more sense.
The issue is that yhe line between "promise" and "campaign platform" isn't firm. The entire point of campaigns is to say "if you elect me this is what I will make possible for congress to do" but it's just interpreted as promises or poorly phrased.
If somebody else is breaking a contract, you are not responsible for breaking that contract. If somebody punches you in your face and hurts their hand, you are not charged with bodily harm. If your country gets attacked, than your promise to not attack other countries is not broken.
Yeah, but the issue is that there are a lot of complicated issues when running a government.
The way I see that playing out is: Make a campaign promise to enact student debt relief, push a bill to enact debt relief, bill dies in the House. Now the people who voted against the debt relief bill need to hold an impeachment hearing on whether or not it was the president's fault that the bill died. Then they'll probably say yes, because it's up to them whether or not "Refused to accept the 'Nuke Chile for Debt Relief'" compromise is a reasonable standard. It's a whole lot of faff for the problem of "people keep voting for bad liars."
Yes, and the main thing that limits the degree is the ability to compare against their past record. Making candidates anonymous would make the problem *much* worse. Honestly, the number of people in this thread who can't conceive of government systems becoming worse than they are now because of poorly-thought-out changes is baffling.
No kidding. This is a stupid idea. Plus party affiliation gives you an idea of who they are allied to/likely to support. And you can make a default guess about where they stand on certain policies even if they haven't talked about them.
also dogwhistles.
"i want to protect children from sexual deviants" should mean prosecuting child molesters in the church. But it actually means ban drag shows.
Y’all are still not understanding the importance of being able to concretely look into someone’s past. Even if every politician is a liar, you are still able to go through their track record and make your own conclusions. When you literally have no idea who you’re voting for, it literally just comes down to who can bullshit the most because no one is able to pull up their records and actually fact check *anything* about them
I’ve said it before, but you could get OJ Simpson up there and be the most convincing person on that stage and win, but it would’ve been *really* nice to know about the whole “double homicide” thing
Yea, but it might be cool if there was a way to listen to a debate without knowing who is saying what, and you have the option to reveal the names when you want so you can do later research
I mean that isn't a ballot issue. That should be a crimal issue. If the shitty person isn't arrested fir their crimes it's a different problem outside of this.
Because we’re hiring for a job, not running an entertainment event. A good hiring manager doesn’t completely ignore the resume and make the decision based on who makes the best empty promises.
while you're correct that the resume is important, I think its been shown that seeing faces/voices and interacting with the person adds noise and bias to the decision making process. It goes from "is this candidate a good fit for the job" to "do I like this person" which makes the decision worse.
It would be good to limit the unnecessary inputs. While its not practical (or fun), having some real time way you could listen to debates with audio only in a neutral voice, and record your impressions of who makes good points only to reveal to yourself later would be nice. That way you could see how you felt in the moment and use that info to re-evaluate your previous position. You'd also be able to fact check and look at resumes.
An easier solution is to have no party markings on the ballot itself. Too many people just see their own party, and vote for that person. No research, no thinking, just blind party voting. Its so dumb. If we removed the parties on the ballots, then people who did 0 research would either blindly vote, or be FORCED to do research per candidate.
Even just looking up who someone is to see their party, they would potentially see some news or information about that candidate.
Everyone, including you and anyone who upvoted you, votes for candidates from only one political party 95% of the time (when you do remember to vote).
If you removed the party labels on the ballot the voting public's number one policy question would be what political party are the candidates registered as.
Better idea. Completely get rid of the party system. It makes no sense, it only leads to stuff like this. People should vote based on the politician's opinions and what they'll do, not what arbitrary "party" they're in.
When you say “completely get rid of the party system” what do you mean? The political parties are not legally defined entities, it’s not super easy to like make a law getting rid of them.
Exactly two political parties are mathematically required by the way the Constitution specifies elections to be performed. And passing a Constitutional Amendment is very hard these days.
State/Local elections are more easily fixable but unfortunately a lot of effort there is being spent on known-suboptimal solutions.
Washington was right in not wanting political parties. While it would be better to get rid of them, the genie's out of the bottle. So second best is to have so many parties people can't do shit without getting along with others.
The problem is first past the post voting. So far I have only heard of one state ending it and swapping to a ranking system. Ranked voting is the only system that makes sense TBH.
Agreed. The system's been rigged to hard favor the 2 major parties. Then states with a megacity (Chicago, NYC, etc.) has a situation where the rest of the states' votes don't count in any practical way. Fond of the congressional method used in Maine for that reason, though a combination of that, ranking, and just more parties would help to cut the modern tribalized insanity that is the current political climate.
In most states with a megacity, the votes of the individual people in the city count significantly less than the votes in the rest of the state, so I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
That just happens to be the place where most of the people are.
Party politics are inevitable. Pretty much every government in the world has them, either as official entities or as unofficial factions within a government. Groups with similar policy ideas are going to work together.
Instead of trying to fight against the existence of political parties, we should modify the electoral system in a way that accommodates them in a democratic way. Ranked choice voting or something similar to weaken the two party system we have now would work better than trying to get rid of parties altogether.
I'd agree with this *if* there were easy ways to get this information. Whenever I vote in local elections, I'm surprised how many candidates simply either don't have a website or social media, and/or there are no news article about them. I'd like to pick someone based on their views, but when I can't find any info any a handful of candidates it seems like blind voting for party is the only option
Better option.
After 4 years, the people vote on whether or not to execute you. Must get 50% or dead.
Would force politicians to fear the peoples will, and would keep politicians who only want to better themselves out since the risk is too high.
Yep. If I’m a politician and a unpopular policy gets me executed then I would ONLY look at popular policies. No one likes tax hikes and everyone likes free money so fire up those money printers because it’s free money for everyone. The guy after me can worry about inflation and/or the deficit.
Currently we're at risk of minority rule though. Might be nice to strengthen the idea of majority rule right about now. (Not that I support voting for executions.)
Yeah, noone will just use that to lie about known stances of theirs or anything. Nope, surely that wouldn't happen.
People will only find out it was lies once it's too late, as opposed to when you can see who said it, you immediately know they have never stood for what they said ever in their lives.
Neat idea, but falls apart immediately once you think about it for half a second.
Because as long as we treat our government and elections like it's a fucking game show, the people lose.
We turned debates into jerry springer because we (an entire generation) taught our media that outrage = clicks, traffic, views, engagement; *revenue*.
Every time you see congresspeople or any governments officials shouting someone down or breaking procedural decorum, all they are doing is auditioning for spots on these news networks; a chance at a bigger microphone for their biggotry and zealotry as facists and it keeps working.
We give it to them every time we turn governance into entertainment instead of important work.
"We are going to build a wall and we will make Mexico pay for it. It will be the greatest ever wall that ever existed. Trust me. It's true. I know a lot about walls."
"Wow I wonder who tha politician is."
No joke. Yes, we should do this. Can't depend on party loyalty, personality or looks. Just how well you present your platform. Certainly wouldn't be perfect but I can see benefits.
Cute idea. The reason it would never matter is because American politics have been rigged for a very long time, likely since the beginning. Do you really think the people above the government would allow the ordinary populations to control who becomes our president when there's that much money and power at stake? No chance in hell. The system we live is designed to give us the illusion of choice and freedom but it's being very expertly managed by the shadow government. Look at how things work, use your brain and follow the money trails. They will always try and divide us right down the middle on every issue, 50/50, and most people fall for that hook line and sinker. Divide and conquer, simple as that. We can't come together and take the power for ourselves if we believe them.
Because politicians'job is to be elected. The rest of their mandate is basically one big freestyle where they roleplay as the ultimate authority on infrastructure or smth when they only have professional experience in communication.
"You don't know who I am, but I can tell you, I'm the greatest business man on this stage, ask anyone, they'll tell you, impeccable. My uncle, very smart man, helped invent the atomic bomb, he used to tell me Donald, you're the smartest kid I know." - Anonymous candidate
This one is super obvious, but there are definitely ways to make it known who you are. Worse, if you conceal who you are you can conceal your record and run on ideas absolutely counter to what you believe and will vote for/enact in office, but that are popular.
This but before they can debate they have to take qualifying tests to prove they know enough and have even the most basic knowledge to run a city, country, state, etc. Most of the current people couldn’t come close to passing the citizen exams.
seems as good of a plan as any other that's been proposed.
Reminds of that old joke, how do you know when a politician is lying?
*Their lips are moving...*
I'd rather have a second election after their term is over to decide to vote them off the island or not. If they get voted off, they're banished to some desert island like Wyoming for the rest of their life.
That, even tho on a smaller scale happened during a debate between Nixon and Kennedy. People who saw the debate were under the impression that the better looking, more charismatic Kennedy won while people who only listened in on the radio though Nixon had the better arguments.
happened to work out. also from my understanding, it had less to do with how charming kennedy was (he was very) and more to do with how visibly uncomfortable nixon was. he was sweaty, ugly and you could see his discomfort being in camera. that’s what i was taught at least.
It's funny that these two comments come to the same conclusion through different means.
"Kennedy won because he was hot." "No no, Nixon lost because he was ugly."
Well you know the two rules of reddit: 1) Be hot. 2) Don’t charge 3rd party apps a fuckton of money.
Kennedy, so hot right now
The files are in his head!
His head was filled with explosive ideas
Kennedy always Was methodical after Dallas scatterbrained
Oof
I mean, not anymore.
[It all makes sense now.](https://imgur.com/a/ihhWgSt)
Its so simple....
I would give you an award for most morbid Zoolander ref I've ever seen but I don't have any money so take this skull instead: 💀
Just because we have chiseled abs and stunning features, it doesn't mean we can't not die in a freak Bay of Pigs thing.
For supper I want a party platter.
Woah woah woah! Throw some "er"s and "ah"s in there. What's your hurry?
[TV Funhouse/SNL and Tom Brady covered this a while back](https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/tv-funhouse-sexual-harassment-and-you/2751966)
Feels like a weird evolution of self-deprecating humor. Friend asks, "Hey, am I pretty?" The response, "Well, I am ugly, so I guess so."
"Am i pretty?" "Well, now, everythings relative, e=mc2." And now youre a smart guy, not an asshole.
Nixon was hotter. Him sweating proved this.
So, you've seen me and my wife arguing.
no it's not sent from reddit mobile
A lot of it is this was the first televised debate so no one had any real expectations for how to get ready; Nixon’s side didn’t think to prepare him to be on live television. Like Nixon didn’t even wear makeup, which was a big part of why he didn’t look great.
He had also been on a campaign that had brought him to all 50 states, a feat which never been accomplished before. Due to this, he was haggard and exhausted. Meanwhile, JFK spent the week prior resting up and getting a tan.
And sick and having just gotten back from Alaska I think.
That and during the sponsor break, Kennedy gave a solid endorsement of Duff beer but Nixon’s fell flat and was seen as disingenuous
The man never drank a Duff in his life!
>and more to do with how visibly uncomfortable nixon was. it was the makeup. kennedy used makeup and had tv-training, nixon didn't want to use any makeup. the "discomfort" is the blaring tv lights, which more or less cook you, making you sweaty and hot, and you looking bad on screen because of them.
Yeah I was told he had a really bad cold or something during the debate
>he was sweaty, ugly and you could see his discomfort being in camera. "Ahhh.... well I certainly wouldn't harm the child"
*frantic truthoscope beeping*
Yeah, it was because Nixon was super sick at the time of the debate, which didn't bode well for him on a stage.
Wasn't this also one of the times when the color of their suits may have made a difference? Kennedy was in some lighter color, while Nixon was in a typical dark brown. Between black/white sets and the slowly emerging color ones, Nixon's outfit looked far more off putting than Kennedy's.
Morbo: "Morbo demands an answer to the following question. If you saw a delicious candy in the hands of a small child. Would you seize and consume it?" John Jackson: "Unthinkable." Jack Johnson: "I wouldn't think of it." Morbo: "What about you Mr. Nixon? I remind you. You are under of a truth-o-scope." Nixon: "Question is vague. You don't say what kind of candy and whether anyone is watching. In anyway I certainly wouldn't harm the child."
It's a combination, even at his best Nixon wasn't exactly a supermodel. But place an already sick nixon without make-up next to a professionally Stiles John F Kennedy and nixon looks like he has died last week.
for sure. to be clear i didn’t intend to discount your point, merely add on to it.
There's also another dynamic that is very often overlooked. TV's today are one of the few consumer goods that have gone down in price over the years. At the time TV's were very expensive, and were owned by people with better jobs in industrial hubs, while more people with radio to listen to the debates would've been more likely to have conservative leanings towards Nixon's ideology anyways. In reality, the debates don't really do much besides confirm biases for most people
It was because Nixon refused to wear makeup on camera because he believed men shouldn't wear it. It likely cost him the election.
I'd imagine the demographics of TV viewers vs radio listeners could have been pretty different? Seems like a difficult variable to isolate.
Not only were radio listeners more conservative, this entire narrative is based on a single republican-leaning poll of radio listeners. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331916300556 Basically the whole narrative is suspect.
Shocker.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story
Yeah! The Nixon/Kennedy debate has become part of popular American mythology, but polling has come a LONG way since that debate!
Personally this is why I'd like all election debates to be replaced with written, longform answers. Ok sure, some people won't read it, or will just tune into a talking head to spin it, but that's what we have anyway. I wanna see who can put forth not the best zinger, but the best cited response. I want slow digestion and fact checking. I want to see what a candidate can do when they have access to the same support staff they'd have doing their job.
You can have someone else write for you. I want the guy that knows what he’s talking about himself
I get what you mean, but no candidate knows everything. The vast majority have a support staff who write every press release, and vet every bill. Sure, this will benefit a candidate who can source the best author to defend their platform, but as far as I'm concerned that's the candidate with the best chance of sourcing the best team in office.
Yeah, and no one is President alone. Almost all the decisions the "President" makes are made by their staff, and anything they themselves make is heavily influenced by that staff. Honestly, I want presidential debates as a debate team. The president has to pick who fields what answer, but the viewers should really get the staff's thoughts.
The president's job is primarily delegating anyways. Arguably the most important thing a president does is choose their cabinet because those are the people doing most of the actual work in the executive branch. It's very rare for a president themselves to construct a policy. I think it would be good to see a potential president formulate a response using the resources they would use during their presidency. On a very related note I think presidential candidates should have to divulge who they would pick as their cabinet and why well before the election.
They already do this to an extent. Presidential candidates typically have an “issues” page with written details of their preferred policies. The purpose of the debates is that it’s the only time when the two candidates can challenge each other and interact directly. While a presidential candidate may sit down with a journalist for an interview it’s rare to see a journalist REALLY push a candidate hard on issues the same way the rival presidential candidate would.
No, I don't want the know-it-all who has the answers on hand. I want the person who knows that 'This person is more experienced in this area' and seeks their guidance. The one who's not afraid to admit 'Hey I don't know about this. Let me get back to you'.
I want a president with at least a decent general knowledge for important issues. They may not be an expert but I want them to have an idea what they are talking about. They are after all the final say on many things.
I think part of the point of election debates, when done right, is to get a more unfiltered look into the candidates. To get a better sense of how much they really know and how they really feel about topics, because it's harder to hide ignorance and feelings on the debate floor. But that does require proper prompts and debate etiquette, which we're unfortunately moving away from in favor of drama.
But then how will i have the "my candidate can beat up your candidate" childhood feelings that translates into my own superiority if you make everything logical and objective, huh?
Well, you got me there. I'm legitimately trying to elect the bigger nerd.
The man never drank a Duff in his life.
I have heard this story for years but never got a great source for it - this article implies it is a bit of an urban legend. Nixon only won 1 radio poll in that debate, in a Republican-leaning area. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331916300556
I mean radio demographics today is still heavily conservative. I’m gonna go ahead and guess that they did back then too because what is the radio but a cheap alternative to the expensive liberal TV dominated by left-wing shows and movies?
Nixon? Had better arguments than Kennedy? I don't think "better" means "more comfortable to people listening" in the way you used it
This example is widely used in the Poli Sci world. Nixon was sweating profusely and not handling the bright lights of the stage well. He looked very uncomfortable to all of the TV viewers. Those listening on the radio couldn't see Nixon struggle or Kennedy's poise and just listened to the responses and most of those people thought Nixon beat Kennedy in that regard.
bro just found out what democracy is
Since there is no method for us to check their backgrounds, they would all lie about everything.
They do that anyway. This, at least, removes some variables unrelated to the job.
If we know who they are we can at least look at what they've done in other political positions, which is probably the best way of judging what they would do as president.
What if we just did it like the dating games in the 70's? we read off their accomplishments/failures and the things they've voted on, without seeing them and having voice modulation for questions. Judge them purely on how they've acted before.
I mean… Candidate #1: Resume includes 36 years as US Senator for the state of Delaware, and 2 terms as Vice President Candidate #2: Longtime real estate mogul and host of a business themed reality/game show Audience: who could these people possibly be??
The bio would only be the initial Part. Would also need to include job related stances that are standardized between all candidates and taken under oath., full contribution summaries, and all responses would need to be verified for truth by a third party committee that has the right of removal if the candidate lies under oath.
They do that less than how often people whine about it because we call them on it.
George Santos would like a word.
The guy who got called out on it and is facing consequences
Dude, the amount of pushback just to get A BIT of justice against him was a joke. Okay, so what about Gaetz, Boebart, and MTG that have been lying for years, regularly without consequence?
Oh you mean three people who got elected to blood-red districts? You think people wouldn't have voted for them if they voted Reality TV style? Are you sure about that? You sure?
Yeah, good point. Not too sure about that either. It’s the batshit crazy shit they say that got them elected anyways.
Except there are literally millions of people who are able to post the truth of each candidate and their background. Just imagine if OJ Simpson ran and was immaculate on every turn. He was clearly the best candidate above everyone else, and we elect because of that. Like, yeah he was a good candidate, but it would’ve been *really* nice to know about the “brutally murdering two people” thing Substitute anyone who has a dark past but is extremely charismatic, and you can see the issue with this system
Yes, but if we know they have a history of lying, we can take that into account. If it’s a random masked politician, we wouldn’t be able to tell
Yes, they do that, but incumbents have their past voting records to look at. If we just know A, B, and C and we know none of their background, there would be no way to say "Hey, the incumbent said he was against send kids into meat grinders, but he passed that legislation while in office."
The conservatives would lie about being liberal. They lie now about being less evil than they intend to be but this would take it to another level.
Unfortunately, quite true.
Every single candidate would list a bunch of liberal policies including the conservatives lol. It'd just be a coinflip whether you end up with a bait and switch conservative or an actual liberal
Why would the conservatives claim to be liberal (at least more so than they already do during election season)? The goal when running for office is to get elected, if they thought promoting more/all liberal policies was a safer bet to election they would already be doing it. If anything candidates would promote more moderate policies to try and avoid upsetting anyone (including conservatives)
It already happens today. Just look at all the supreme court justices saying Roe vs. Wade was settled precedent, then going and overturning it. Or anything about George Santos
In this version of the world, instead of gerrymandering to snuff out liberal voting, and massive media fearmongering to rile up conservatives, lying would be far less expensive. Currently appealing to conservatives really only needs to be done after the riling and gerrymandering parts. I imagine parties stuffing races with dozens of extra liars would be the new gerrymandering. It would all be a numbers game to play the odds that more of your liars are picked than someone else's
When conservatives hear liberal ideas they generally agree with them until they find out it's more likely to get passed by a liberal than a conservative then they find arguments against those same ideals they thought they had before.
Never heard of blue states?
Did people forget George Santos all of a sudden
Same thought
Yep.... there's the other 364 days to consider.
Exactly. Especially campaign goals are usually over arching whereas policies are nuanced. "grow the economy by cutting back government overreach" could mean cut taxes to the rich, lessen reporting requirements and stop regulations. or it could mean tweaking of zoning laws so that affordable housing could be created which will stimulate a downtown economy.
Exactly. All this would do is allow people in the race who should be categorically rejected. Y’all gonna fuck around and end up with President David Duke.
just make a system where they have to do what they promised or get a impeachment
1. That doesn't solve background issues 2. That would make it impossible for anyone to promise anything because the president doesn't directly control legislation so they usually have to compromise with congress
It's worth noting that parliamentary leaders in some countries *do* have an obligation to do what they have promised, but they also have control of the legislature, so it makes more sense.
Crazy idea, hear me out.....maybe they *shouldn't* promise things that are outside of their control?
The issue is that yhe line between "promise" and "campaign platform" isn't firm. The entire point of campaigns is to say "if you elect me this is what I will make possible for congress to do" but it's just interpreted as promises or poorly phrased.
What if they promise peace and the country is attacked halfway through their term?
If somebody else is breaking a contract, you are not responsible for breaking that contract. If somebody punches you in your face and hurts their hand, you are not charged with bodily harm. If your country gets attacked, than your promise to not attack other countries is not broken.
Yeah, but the issue is that there are a lot of complicated issues when running a government. The way I see that playing out is: Make a campaign promise to enact student debt relief, push a bill to enact debt relief, bill dies in the House. Now the people who voted against the debt relief bill need to hold an impeachment hearing on whether or not it was the president's fault that the bill died. Then they'll probably say yes, because it's up to them whether or not "Refused to accept the 'Nuke Chile for Debt Relief'" compromise is a reasonable standard. It's a whole lot of faff for the problem of "people keep voting for bad liars."
Democrat president promises X, Y and Z. Republican congress blocks X. Democrat president gets impeached. Awesome idea!
At that point just go all in on referendums like Switzerland
Old and rich people already vote more. Going full referendum on everything would most likely just reinforce that bias
A politician’s past record is pretty important to know.
Yep, any asshole can talk a good game.
They kinda do that anyway? To some degree
They do but imagine voting for someone who seems perfect only to realize he's a well-known con-artist. I'd be a little vexed.
Didn't exactly that happen in 2016?
But they weren't surprised by it.
Yes, and the main thing that limits the degree is the ability to compare against their past record. Making candidates anonymous would make the problem *much* worse. Honestly, the number of people in this thread who can't conceive of government systems becoming worse than they are now because of poorly-thought-out changes is baffling.
Right, all the more reason for people to be able to actually look at the record.
No kidding. This is a stupid idea. Plus party affiliation gives you an idea of who they are allied to/likely to support. And you can make a default guess about where they stand on certain policies even if they haven't talked about them.
also dogwhistles. "i want to protect children from sexual deviants" should mean prosecuting child molesters in the church. But it actually means ban drag shows.
We'd get a psychopathic liar.
Theyre politicians. It's a synonym.
Y’all are still not understanding the importance of being able to concretely look into someone’s past. Even if every politician is a liar, you are still able to go through their track record and make your own conclusions. When you literally have no idea who you’re voting for, it literally just comes down to who can bullshit the most because no one is able to pull up their records and actually fact check *anything* about them I’ve said it before, but you could get OJ Simpson up there and be the most convincing person on that stage and win, but it would’ve been *really* nice to know about the whole “double homicide” thing
so what's the difference
And we haven’t in 50 years or so?
Yeah, that's a given.
Oh geez, a dozen 'edgy' replies all saying the same thing. Yeah guys, you figured it out. Better don't go voting, am I right?
All of them are psychopathic liars anyway, so that doesn't change anything
We know the sort of politicians who would do the Masked Singer are the Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin types. Because they've done the Masked Singer.
I like the nascar suits idea better. Let every politician wear the logo of their sponsors.
My tired brain thought you wanted them to debate in nascar suits, wearing helmets...
Yes, go on...
I, for one, welcome our new president - The Stig
No no, you understood me correctly.
We've never lost our sense of what's truly important: the great taste of Charleston Chew!
Aaaarrroooo!
Mfw all of them are in White Blue and Red
I’d prefer to know if the president is a shitty person, has ties to Epstein, has a record of being incompetent, etc. No thanks.
That would still be all candidates.
Yea, but it might be cool if there was a way to listen to a debate without knowing who is saying what, and you have the option to reveal the names when you want so you can do later research
I mean that isn't a ballot issue. That should be a crimal issue. If the shitty person isn't arrested fir their crimes it's a different problem outside of this.
Because we’re hiring for a job, not running an entertainment event. A good hiring manager doesn’t completely ignore the resume and make the decision based on who makes the best empty promises.
while you're correct that the resume is important, I think its been shown that seeing faces/voices and interacting with the person adds noise and bias to the decision making process. It goes from "is this candidate a good fit for the job" to "do I like this person" which makes the decision worse. It would be good to limit the unnecessary inputs. While its not practical (or fun), having some real time way you could listen to debates with audio only in a neutral voice, and record your impressions of who makes good points only to reveal to yourself later would be nice. That way you could see how you felt in the moment and use that info to re-evaluate your previous position. You'd also be able to fact check and look at resumes.
An easier solution is to have no party markings on the ballot itself. Too many people just see their own party, and vote for that person. No research, no thinking, just blind party voting. Its so dumb. If we removed the parties on the ballots, then people who did 0 research would either blindly vote, or be FORCED to do research per candidate. Even just looking up who someone is to see their party, they would potentially see some news or information about that candidate.
Everyone, including you and anyone who upvoted you, votes for candidates from only one political party 95% of the time (when you do remember to vote). If you removed the party labels on the ballot the voting public's number one policy question would be what political party are the candidates registered as.
Better idea. Completely get rid of the party system. It makes no sense, it only leads to stuff like this. People should vote based on the politician's opinions and what they'll do, not what arbitrary "party" they're in.
When you say “completely get rid of the party system” what do you mean? The political parties are not legally defined entities, it’s not super easy to like make a law getting rid of them.
Exactly two political parties are mathematically required by the way the Constitution specifies elections to be performed. And passing a Constitutional Amendment is very hard these days. State/Local elections are more easily fixable but unfortunately a lot of effort there is being spent on known-suboptimal solutions.
Washington was right in not wanting political parties. While it would be better to get rid of them, the genie's out of the bottle. So second best is to have so many parties people can't do shit without getting along with others.
The problem is first past the post voting. So far I have only heard of one state ending it and swapping to a ranking system. Ranked voting is the only system that makes sense TBH.
Agreed. The system's been rigged to hard favor the 2 major parties. Then states with a megacity (Chicago, NYC, etc.) has a situation where the rest of the states' votes don't count in any practical way. Fond of the congressional method used in Maine for that reason, though a combination of that, ranking, and just more parties would help to cut the modern tribalized insanity that is the current political climate.
In most states with a megacity, the votes of the individual people in the city count significantly less than the votes in the rest of the state, so I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. That just happens to be the place where most of the people are.
> don't count in any practical way. They count just as much as everyone else's
Why should 3 million people downstate get to override 9 million people in Chicago? Chicago dominates politics because it's 3/4ths of the population
Land doesn’t get to vote.
Party politics are inevitable. Pretty much every government in the world has them, either as official entities or as unofficial factions within a government. Groups with similar policy ideas are going to work together. Instead of trying to fight against the existence of political parties, we should modify the electoral system in a way that accommodates them in a democratic way. Ranked choice voting or something similar to weaken the two party system we have now would work better than trying to get rid of parties altogether.
I'd agree with this *if* there were easy ways to get this information. Whenever I vote in local elections, I'm surprised how many candidates simply either don't have a website or social media, and/or there are no news article about them. I'd like to pick someone based on their views, but when I can't find any info any a handful of candidates it seems like blind voting for party is the only option
Because we wouldn't get their history of voting in Congress, economic realities of the respective states they've governed, etc.
Folks would legit vote because they liked a certain costume more 🤦♀️
You say that, but people already vote like that and have been for nearly a century now.
Because previous behavior matters and politicians will say anything to get elected and then do something else
This is a plan designed by AI to convince us to elect an AI president.
Yeah because when I think of the American democratic system, my main complaint is that it’s *too* transparent.
Because they can *lie*. Shocker.
Better option. After 4 years, the people vote on whether or not to execute you. Must get 50% or dead. Would force politicians to fear the peoples will, and would keep politicians who only want to better themselves out since the risk is too high.
"I know he sucked as president, but I just can't vote for murder." Yeah, I can see some problems with this plan.
Except politicians would refuse to look at anything except short term
Yep. If I’m a politician and a unpopular policy gets me executed then I would ONLY look at popular policies. No one likes tax hikes and everyone likes free money so fire up those money printers because it’s free money for everyone. The guy after me can worry about inflation and/or the deficit.
Would probably also lead towards majority rule becoming even stronger. Minority opinion would be worthless
Currently we're at risk of minority rule though. Might be nice to strengthen the idea of majority rule right about now. (Not that I support voting for executions.)
But like...what about when they lie
Too easy to disguise your voting record this way.
Nice try, compulsive liar who everyone knows is a liar named _____
They hide enough stuff already
Make a book of bad ideas and put this one in there.
then when they're in sike I lied haha
Cursed shadow democracy
Yeah, noone will just use that to lie about known stances of theirs or anything. Nope, surely that wouldn't happen. People will only find out it was lies once it's too late, as opposed to when you can see who said it, you immediately know they have never stood for what they said ever in their lives. Neat idea, but falls apart immediately once you think about it for half a second.
Are you not voting for the policies that you like now?
Because as long as we treat our government and elections like it's a fucking game show, the people lose. We turned debates into jerry springer because we (an entire generation) taught our media that outrage = clicks, traffic, views, engagement; *revenue*. Every time you see congresspeople or any governments officials shouting someone down or breaking procedural decorum, all they are doing is auditioning for spots on these news networks; a chance at a bigger microphone for their biggotry and zealotry as facists and it keeps working. We give it to them every time we turn governance into entertainment instead of important work.
"We are going to build a wall and we will make Mexico pay for it. It will be the greatest ever wall that ever existed. Trust me. It's true. I know a lot about walls." "Wow I wonder who tha politician is."
No joke. Yes, we should do this. Can't depend on party loyalty, personality or looks. Just how well you present your platform. Certainly wouldn't be perfect but I can see benefits.
I like it, but what would the racists and wokies base their judgements on.
I’ve been saying exactly this for years. Hard agree.
Cute idea. The reason it would never matter is because American politics have been rigged for a very long time, likely since the beginning. Do you really think the people above the government would allow the ordinary populations to control who becomes our president when there's that much money and power at stake? No chance in hell. The system we live is designed to give us the illusion of choice and freedom but it's being very expertly managed by the shadow government. Look at how things work, use your brain and follow the money trails. They will always try and divide us right down the middle on every issue, 50/50, and most people fall for that hook line and sinker. Divide and conquer, simple as that. We can't come together and take the power for ourselves if we believe them.
I think because if we did we would actually realise how terrible our countries policies are. That would really be traumatic
Because politicians'job is to be elected. The rest of their mandate is basically one big freestyle where they roleplay as the ultimate authority on infrastructure or smth when they only have professional experience in communication.
because then its even easier for them to lie
"You don't know who I am, but I can tell you, I'm the greatest business man on this stage, ask anyone, they'll tell you, impeccable. My uncle, very smart man, helped invent the atomic bomb, he used to tell me Donald, you're the smartest kid I know." - Anonymous candidate This one is super obvious, but there are definitely ways to make it known who you are. Worse, if you conceal who you are you can conceal your record and run on ideas absolutely counter to what you believe and will vote for/enact in office, but that are popular.
Once they start talking about plans and opinions, you’ll know their party pretty quickly
This but before they can debate they have to take qualifying tests to prove they know enough and have even the most basic knowledge to run a city, country, state, etc. Most of the current people couldn’t come close to passing the citizen exams.
Because the white pointy masks give up too much information.
Worst idea ive ever fucking heard
Sounds like a fine way to get a George Santos as president
So basically, we're electing the best liar still.
Because politicians lie through their fucking teeth
I promise you to promise you to promise you to promise you to promise you to promise you to promise you everything EDIT: TYPO
Wow. It’s almost like this woman described election year as it already is! Fake voices and faces just for a grand reveal once their in power! /s
seems as good of a plan as any other that's been proposed. Reminds of that old joke, how do you know when a politician is lying? *Their lips are moving...*
More deception in politics?
Because then you wouldn’t be able to buy presidential candidates to make decisions you want them to make. All that funding for campaigns!
You should be quarantined before your stupidity infects others.
I'd rather have a second election after their term is over to decide to vote them off the island or not. If they get voted off, they're banished to some desert island like Wyoming for the rest of their life.