I often like *Counterpunch *for their opinion. And they make an excellent point here <http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/>, as you say, Glen.
My contention for who should be in the presidential debates is that perhaps notwithstanding the *FiveThirtyEight *simulation results, any candidate on ballots in *enough *states--where it is possible for them to accrue 270 electoral votes--should be included in the presidential debates. So under this criterion, I would argue for the inclusion of both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. If they are not in those debates, it is argued that it is near-impossible for them to win much in the Electoral College. Now, Nate Silver makes a different argument for an event with non-zero probability, but one that would involve Congress making the final choice. I mean forget for a moment what success any third-party candidate may have in the Electoral College, this "not-getting-to-270-by-any-candidate" scenario is much more likely given the way the polls are showing an inexplicable near dead heat between the two major-party candidates. Of course, this would require a good showing by the third-party candidates in the Electoral College. Now, under this "possible" scenario, any other third-party candidate would have to be considered if they win any state; that is if I understand the rules for this heretofore unprecedented event. So, if this is so, what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state? And, this possibility becomes more plausible for a third-party candidate, the more states that have them on their ballot. I am, of course, ruling out the effect of the corporate-controlled media bias for shirking their role of informing the electorate that there are more than two candidates for consideration and the strength of the two-party hegemony in this country. And, I won't get into the idea of developing an *epistocracy *to replace all of this, but it's a good discussion to be had ... π According to *Merriam-Webster*, plausible means "appearing worthy of belief ." Maybe this year many things that didn't seem credible in the past could be worthy of our belief this cycle. I mean, how credible is it that Donald Trump would have become the GOP's champion candidate for POTUS? Everything seems upside-down this time. Yes? On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:29 PM, glen β£ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > I liked the point as made by this post: > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest > -lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/ > > But even if we admit that the only purpose for the peripheral candidates > is to influence the actual candidates, we still have an argument for > allowing them to debate. So, the answer to the question of why they're not > in the debate really is because it's _bipartisan_ not nonpartisan. It's > just another example of how the expressivity of your language biases what > you do/can understand. > > On 10/03/2016 04:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > >> Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100? >> >> On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <wallrobe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> This simulation ensemble conducted by *FiveThirtyEight *gives some >>> plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary >>> Johnson--not >>> Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero >>> plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't >>> Johnson >>> in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find >>> out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? [image: π€][image: π] >>> >>> > > -- > [image: β£] glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
