Nope, but there's a non-profit, the Commission on Presidential Debates that gets funding when they happen. The debates are like the two parties having a smooch with various media agencies. It's all theater to shuffle money around, there's nothing in the constitution that says debates need to happen.
There's also nothing in the constitution that says people directly vote for president. Senate is allowed to choose someone random if no one gets 50% of the electoral votes.
Back in the day the League of Women Voters put on the debates and if you wanted any credibility you had to show up. Then the parties were like "Wait, why are we letting an independent group write the questions? This isn't af ucking democracy!" and took control of the debates. Now it seems like htey're just doing away with the pretense all together.
As if either of them would agree to a debate
Stupid question, but is it mandatory to have a presidential debate?
Nope, but there's a non-profit, the Commission on Presidential Debates that gets funding when they happen. The debates are like the two parties having a smooch with various media agencies. It's all theater to shuffle money around, there's nothing in the constitution that says debates need to happen.
There's also nothing in the constitution that says people directly vote for president. Senate is allowed to choose someone random if no one gets 50% of the electoral votes.
Back in the day the League of Women Voters put on the debates and if you wanted any credibility you had to show up. Then the parties were like "Wait, why are we letting an independent group write the questions? This isn't af ucking democracy!" and took control of the debates. Now it seems like htey're just doing away with the pretense all together.
Yeah, I wonder if :trump-moist: deliberately made the decision to not debate as a closed-doors agreement with :brump: