• eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    He’s not wrong, the two main parties absolutely do collude to create a duopoly.

    He’s also the wrong messenger to deliver the message.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s not just that.

      Every other election debates are held by a nonpartisan organization and a third party that meets certain requirements can also join.

      Because political parties are private organizations not attached to the government.

      This election both parties agreed they will only do debates that they arrange.

      Meaning they’re in charge of who shows up, and they’ll never both agree to let anyone else join.

      People keep acting like it doesn’t matter, but it’s a big deal.

      Edit:

      Obviously RFK is a joke and won’t win, but we shouldn’t just shrug as the two private parties seize more and more power when they have zero accountability to voters and neither side will ever be held accountable by their own politicians.

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Every other election debates are held by a nonpartisan organization and a third party that meets certain requirements can also join.

        They change the rules rather arbitrarily to suit their needs anyway. During the 2000 election Nader was excluded from debates under the new rule that the green party had to have gotten 5% of the vote (nationally) in the previous presidential election to quality. Some of the votes for Nader, that helped get Bush elected, were cast to make sure the green party got that 5% for the next election. They didn’t, it ended up at 4% and change, but the rule was changed for 2004 anyway so it wouldn’t have mattered.

      • Drusas@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        He’s being left out not because Trump or Biden are keeping him out. He’s being left out because he does not meet the minimum requirements to qualify for a place on the debate stage. He has to have a certain percentage of voters polling for him and he simply does not have that.

        • Rolder@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think the point was that the polling requirement was how it USED to work, but this election season the parties are holding their own debates with their own rules. I don’t have a source on it myself but I think that’s the claim here.

          RFK Jr wouldn’t be invited regardless though.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        The lower one side goes, the lower the other side goes. How are you gonna vote out fascism when the Democrats go a low as they can simply because Republicans go lower. Trump doesn’t even need to win at this point for fascism to continue encroaching because Dems will continue to strip liberties like fair debates away under the guise of stopping the other sides fascism. Every day we march rightward.

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      The two main parties are so big that they don’t need to collude. Every single component of our media will do the work for them.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Colluding involves communication and coordinated ation. They don’t need to collude because excluding third parties is in their best interest.

        Both parties are still wary after the outcome in 1992 when Ross Perot received nearly 20% of the vote after being included in the debates. Neither want to risk having a wildcard on stage.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Neither want to risk having a wildcard on stage

          Well thats really none of their business so long as this is a democracy. What they want is irrelevant.

          He’s polling high enough. He should be included.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Debates are not some kind of regulated and managed thing that exists for candidates to show up to. They are hosted by third parties and all of the rules and setup are decided by the third party and the political parties, so of course rhe two big names get to didctate how they are run. Even having a minimum amount of polling is subjective and part of the process of setting up the debate. If both of the major parties won’rlt show up if a third party candidate with around 10% in the polls is included, the the debate will exclude that third party candidate.

            How the hell is captain brain worms polling at 10% without stealing a bunch of votes from Trump? This country is doomed.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              This is more of a warning to not listen to pollsters. 10% of voters are definitely not going to vote for this guy, maybe one or two percent. Clearly the polls are way off.

              Don’t even listen to them. Vote. Help your favored candidate. Donate if you want to. Help get out the vote.

    • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s the network’s rule:

      Kennedy has already hit CNN’s 15% polling threshold in two out of four qualifying polls. But the network also announced that participants must “appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency prior to the eligibility deadline.”

      I think as a bare minimum requirement, being able to appear on the ballots of enough states to actually have a chance of winning makes perfect sense as a rule. With all the things to shit on the parties for, why make up a strawman?

        • kandoh@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 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

        • distantsounds@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s an arbitrary percentage they came up with in 2000. It should be lower, and it’s not like they stick closely to their own made up rules.

          Lowering the percentage would be another step toward breaking this ridiculous 2 party system.

            • distantsounds@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Hard disagree. He has the possibility to siphon off enough trump voters to maybe give Biden a way to win. We also didn’t have two 80 year olds on stage back then. The people deserve debate edit: this even if all we are allowed to add is someone with a starved-dead worm in their brain.

                • distantsounds@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  There is no way he’s pulling anyone away from Biden lol Especially at this point considering Biden’s stance on Israel. AND yes, the society should see what state the “democracy” is in, it’s the only way for people to maybe get the hint that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed.
                  Edit: if debates don’t have effect on outcomes, why would it even matter then? lol