> I mean, sure, we need some amount of polling because it informs decisions such as who gets to participate in televised debates I would strongly disagree with

> I mean, sure, we need some amount of polling because it informs decisions such as who gets to participate in televised debates I would strongly disagree with this use of polling data. This is exactly how they justify locking out third party/independent candidates from the debates and preventing them from getting any traction, it's the two party duopoly at its finest (also how we end up with ironic tweets like [1]). I think a much better system would be that anyone who will be on the ballot in enough states to take the presidency (ie 270 electoral votes) should be included. Requiring being on the ballot in enough states ensures that there is a reasonable base level of support for the candidate (since it's not particularly easy to get on that many ballots) and is also an objective measure vs taking into account polls that might not even have many candidates as options. Even if that allows some candidates you might consider "unviable" to participate, I still say that's a good thing. At least it allows them to show their ideas for how to address various issues (which may influence the platforms of the larger parties if there appears to be broad support for it) and also allows them to potentially gain more support in the future. [1] https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/1314679508184727554 https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/131467950818472755...