• kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s way too high a requirement. I don’t like this guy but it’s essential we start getting more than two options each election

    • Edward Teach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      We have more than two options each election. In 2020 there were 4, in 2012 and 2016 there were 7, in 2004 and 2008 there were 6, in 2000 there were 8. Having options isn’t the problem. It’s that all the losers get out of running and losing, is absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is the winner.

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Those are never taken seriously because they’re never in the debate, which for most of my life where people actually made their decision on who to vote for.

        • Edward Teach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          No, they’re never taken seriously because it’s a winner-take-all system. The number of people who make a voting decision based on debates is vanishingly small, if it ever even mattered.

          edit: Proof that debates are irrelevant.

          • kandoh@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Didn’t use to be the case. Everyone use to say they would make up their minds after watching the debate.

            • Edward Teach@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              That study looked into 62 elections in ten countries since 1952. I’m sure people said the debates helped them make up their minds, but the statistical evidence doesn’t bear that out.