you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 3 years ago (6 children)

Candidates must receive 40,000 donors, including at least 200 unique donors in each of 20 states, to qualify for the August debate.

It's an expensive attempt to attend a debate.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Maybe there shouldn't be donor number requirements to be involved in a debate? Because all that does is gatekeep new faces.

    Our system is set up to continuously prop up the already well-known and controversial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    There's got to be some threshold, though. I agree that new faces need to be able to get on the stage, but it can't just be anyone who wants to. Debates with too many candidates are chaotic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Local elections for me are based on a minimum number of signatures. It'd be nice if presidential candidates had to go and get some number of physical signatures themselves. It'd be a good way to force them to spend at least a little bit of time actually meeting people. Though this would probably get gamed somehow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    They do to get on the ballot, though I don't think they need to get those themselves physically. It's not exactly practical at the scale of the POTUS due to the number of states and population, since each state party has their own requirements.

    I think the best way to get new faces would be a solely public funded campaign process combined with something like ranked choice voting. The current levers are controlled by too few now for any minor rule changes to move the needle.

  • source
  • parent