5 ms·
The purpose of the original "need 50k donors to get to the debate stage" rule is that it's a high hurdle for a normal person to achieve. A type of proof of work
by obblekk 3y ago
The purpose of the original "need 50k donors to get to the debate stage" rule is that it's a high hurdle for a normal person to achieve. A type of proof of work that tries to get debates between candidates that are actually being considered by viewers.
It's clearly been hacked now so what's the next best iteration?
The debate host could ask people to donate $1 to them in exchange for submitting a vote on the candidates that should be included in the debate. This removes the candidate's ability to compensate for a vote, but leaves the hard part of convincing people to vote for you.
The big downside is only the most passionate people will donate a $1 to vote for a debate candidate, possibly resulting in more extreme candidates that deeply appeal to a narrow audience.
Maybe debate forum could even have a ranked choice voting for $1 donors to create more spread in who gets to debate.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> It's clearly been hacked now so what's the next best iteration? Increasing the national polling threshold (1% in a set number of approved polls, currently) and/or adding higher minimum state polling thresholds in a set number of states. Or do nothing; the donor thresholds (200 in each of 20 states and 40k total) are a filter whether people are meeting them normally are burning their early warchest buying them, and the polling threshold still is there even if its not raised. Or adopt a rule that the value of any merchandise provided to campaign contributors is deducted from the value of the contribution for this purpose only, and only net contributors of at least $1 count for debate qualification.
- noduerme 3y agoWhy not just take money out of the equation completely, and make the requirement be to collect 50k signatures, with the stipulation that it's a crime to pay for them?