Mark Rauterkus posted: I do not remember the KDKA hosted debate among ALL the candidates on the ballot for the recent election for US Congress. Remember when the corporate media in town did the freeze out of the Libertarian who was not spending millions in advertisements for a 6 month job. That's pay to play folly that KDKA was a big part of promoting. Yet the margin of difference between Coke and Pepsi was twice as great with the third choice. Woops.
Corporate bean counters at KDKA have a hard time counting to three when it comes to choices to offer the voters in terms of debates. Or, just don't do any at all.
Paul Martino Kdka: The standard in most of these debates is...if a candidate is polling less than ten percent, he or she is a fringe candidate with virtually no chance of winning. Therefore it makes sense to focus on the legitimate candidates who will be the eventual winner.
Mark Rauterkus That is a top-down standard that is shameful. It is a corporate policy that is undemocratic and not what we urge you to do. The standard is also that the super-majority of the voters do not even go to the polls because of BS standards such as that.
The real standard is set when the election department puts who is ONTO the ballot. If the person is on the ballot, the standard is achieved.
We don't need some newsroom, corporate, suit wearing person with power telling citizens who is fit to be on the stage because they didn't pay the advertisement dollars for air-time nor hire the polling corporate buddies to tell you what to do.
If you really feel strongly in what you post, you should retire. There is no hope for being a journalist then.
In the real world, the third party person had twice the difference as to who won. In the real world, the third party person is the one who moves the policy for the future. In the real world, a bulk of the Ds and a bulk of the Rs are not going to change their minds and vote a different way because of the debate. Meanwhile, the third party person who is a voter -- a THIRD of the voters these days are INDIE, L, G, S, C, and Unaffiliated, are going to decide who wins.
People vote with their feet. The region and the city is in decline, still, due to the bias against the individual, perfectly illustrated with this corporate policy.
You've made Sinclair speak sound like the the song of angels.
Mark Roberts: Mark Rauterkus Sorry. Not everyone can play.
Paul Martino Kdka: Mark Rauterkus the League of Women Voters uses a standard similar to this. Has there ever been a libertarian candidate in the state to receive ten percent of the vote or more?
Mark Rauterkus: Paul Martino Kdka I did.
Mark Rauterkus The League of Women Voters are part of the problem too. The non-voters are crushing them too.
Judy Haluka" This has been true forever. It is called efficient use of resources. Why would you spend vakuable resources on a candidate that has no hope at all?
Mark Rauterkus: Because it is STUPID to think with only HALF A BRAIN.
BECAUSE it is not efficient to to discount / ignore / prison / embargo / freeze-out / and frustrate a rather large segment of the citizenship.
The third party candidate represents the 1% or 2% of that minor party as well as the greater majority, 40-60% of the citizens who choose to NOT VOTE AT ALL.
And most of all, how EFFICIENT are the USE OF RESOURCES so as to SPEND more than $5-million for a job that lasts 6 months (as the term is going to end in 2018) and pays less than $200K annually? The entire efficient use of resources is a total joke because these other candidates in this case BURNED MONEY. They are the definition of INEFFICIENT resource squandering. Did it cost them $200 per vote received? The Libertarian in this case got people to vote for his campaign at $.50 each. Who is efficient, really? Why are the big-spenders the one we want to go to congress and have influence over treasury, taxes, and constitutional matters?