Crazy Idea # 3

Post Reply New Topic

So most people agree that presidential elections are more like sports champoinships than an actual selection of a candidate qualified to run our country. Both candidates have been filtered by their respective parties and both will say whatever is necessary to appeal to voters (one moreso than the other). The democrat and republican parties both know that one of them will get their candidate into the whitehouse every four years. Supporters of either candidate will overlook, deny, or willfully accept their candidate's shortcomings if for no other reason, just to keep the other candidate out of office.

The mainstream media pays very little attention to 3rd party candidates, and the last time a 3rd party candidate got a single electoral vote was in 1992. Most people say that voting 3rd party is the same as taking a vote from the main party.

So the crazy idea part is this: A 3rd party candidate reality show. Why?
1. Reality shows get more attention
2. These candidates have no expectation of being elected as it is, so putting themselves into reality show situations won't do anything but give them more exposure
3. Imagine Jill Stein actually tasked to teach a problem student, would she be as compassionate as she preaches, or is there a breaking point, those kinds of moments are more revealing than campaign promises and no democrat/republican is bold enough to give themselves over to a reality show.

Before any of you call this idea ridiculous, keep in mind that we have a choice between two candidates who try their best to control what we know about them and expect to gain our trust. Here you'd have more than two candidates who wouldn't beable to hide behind the veneer of their idealism 24/7.

What they should do is allow every candidate to debate that is on the ballot in enough to states that could win the electoral college or at the very least every candidate that is on all 50 ballots. The petty superficial differences between Romney and Obama would be so abundantly clear.

Yes.

But why on earth would either of the major party candidates agree to participate in such a debate?

Implementing instant runoff voting or one of it's variants would be far more effective at legitimizing 3rd party candidacies, not to mention more dignified.

Good lord...Snooki would probably win.

^
Snooki might be an improvement on the current field.

It's probably just me being cynical, but mentioning dignity during a discussion of US Presidential Elections seems a little... bizarre.

As it is, with three different 24-hour news networks clamoring to dig up sensationalist soundbites and Donald Trump insistently inserting himself into the fray, it's already beginning to feel like a reality show.

I looked up instant run-off voting, it makes way more sense than our electoral system. People would be much less apprehensive about voting 3rd party if they knew they weren't just enabling a candidate they didn't like. I just don't think our two party system would take that kind of change lying down. I mean their odds of winning any given election are getting closer to 50%, and the major parties usually only have one challenger to focus on. I'd be surprised if democrats and republicans weren't both happy with the current set-up.

I'm convinced that the msm won't give a 3rd party any chances, NPR was the only station that even covered the Jill Stein / Gary Johnson debate. As far as I can tell, politely debating one's point of view won't get the voters' attention, but taking on challenging tasks and chaotic situations gets almost everyone's attention, especially if you point out that these people are also running for president. I'll agree though, it isn't very dignified.