Are you asking me to prove your point for you? Since we seem to be sticking with your specific preferences are you saying you know less about Romney than you do about Johnson...really? I see, so you selectively apply polling criteria to afford talk time. Romney is one or two so he gets the most but the number three guy gets second to least? Not sure I can refer to that as logic. I agree. However, the debates give the candidates a national stage. Not everyone Google's candidates but most people will turn their tv on. These affairs are already restricted to those who poll high enough nationally. Therefore, selectively restricting talk time further, based on undefinable criteria is unfair in the extreme.
Dude, I know NOTHING about Romney! I know that is not very complimentary of the guy, but I seriously don't know where he stands on really anything. The guy has been on both sides of pretty much every issue. So what I want to see from the guy is some conviction on issues. I want him to commit to something. that's what these debates are for. Almost all candidates waffle around, but the debates back them into a corner and tell them to take a stand somewhere. To Johnson's credit, and Paul as well, they are consistent, very consistent. Because of that, I don't need to hear them repeat themselves over and over again. Do you understand now? Again, nobody watches these things on TV. Most people get their political fix on the internet. As far as why number 3 gets little talk time, it's not just 3. It's 3 through 9! Look, it's like the NFL, only two teams play in the Superbowl OK? There are two front runners in this race. Those are the two I want to hear the most from. That is not to say I want to hear "nothing" from the other 7, I just want to hear "more" from the top 2. I honestly don't understand why our system of debate is so hard for you to grasp. Debates have worked this way for 50 years.
Thank you for taking the time to explain it further and yes, your personal proclivities are now more clear; however, you do realize your views are not necessarily representative of the entire electorate...right? Then why do we bother to tune in during the regular season? Also, 3-9 did get less talk time, but 4,5,6,7, and 8 got more time than 3 did. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense. First, because it is not a debate, it is a dog and pony show. Also, I was unaware Youtube had been around for 50 years. Second, our debates have, in fact, changed over the years. As an example: Between 1988 and 2000, the formats have been governed in detail by secret memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the two major candidates; an MOU for 2004 was also negotiated, but unlike the earlier agreements it was jointly released by the two candidates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates Also, up until 1988, the League of Woman voters sponsored the Presidential debates. It was at that point the two major parties fought to take them over, allowing them to more easily exclude third parties. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/u...-form-panel-to-hold-presidential-debates.html So, there have been some changes over time. Further, if not for his strong performance against Carter in 1980, Reagan might not have won the presidency....because the GOP sure as hell didn't want him. So, in my estimation the debates play an important role in the process and the unfairness with which they are administered is a travesty we the people should work to address.
I am aware of the fact that less than 50% actually votes but how does that bring you to only 25% caring? Doesn't voting indicate some level of caring? I think a lot of people tune in expecting a debate and tune out when they realize it is anything but. Point is, you don't actually know who is going to the Superbowl in week one or even week 10. You can guess and you can place a wager but only time will prove you right. However, much like ESPN, that does not stop the media from making prognostications. The difference however, is when the media tells us someone can or can't win, people believe it and it has a direct effect on the process. That has to stop imho. It is a dog and pony show pretending to be a debate. It allows the media to handpick our pre approved candidates for us. Your point stands but my point is that this issue should be addressed. If a network wants to play host, they must agree to be neutral. Anything less than that gives Fox News, CNN, MSNBC et al far too much power over our political process. We can easily see how that has played out for us.
Sorry to have to disagree with you, yet again, but there is, in fact, an open media conspiracy to marginalize Ron Paul. They've pretty much admitted it. Please listen to the media describe that process in it's own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vRuy0m7IjA&feature=player_embedded http://futuredispatch.com/2011/08/14/media-admits-to-ignoring-ron-paul/ http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgno...admits-media-conspiracy-to-stop-ron-paul.html http://www.examiner.com/conservativ...-is-the-serious-threat-to-obama#ixzz1VEs4rU5G When we juxtapose those admissions with the amount of talk time each candidate receives, we can clearly see the debates are part of the marginalization attempt.