Skip to content
Sign up free
Opinion

Voters Agree CNN Debate Was a Trainwreck... And It Is a Reflection of US Elections

Voters Agree CNN Debate Was a Trainwreck... And It Is a Reflection of US Elections
Photos by Gage Skidmore. Adapted and Republished by Emma Kaden. Creative Commons license.

"It was a sad day for the country." Many voters have shared this exact sentiment in the days following the June 27 CNN presidential debate.

By Shawn Griffiths

2-minute read

Photo Credit: Original photos by Gage Skidmore on Flickr. The photos were adapted and republished by Emma Kaden on Flickr.

"It was a sad day for the country."

Many voters have shared this exact sentiment in the days following the June 27 CNN presidential debate -- a night that left Jon Stewart exclaiming, "This cannot be real life!"

It was a night devoid of substance, which anyone who has been following presidential debates in modern history knew was going to be the case.

Candidates were given 2 minutes to discuss nuanced issues and 1 minute for response and rebuttal. The rules were designed for scripted talking points.

And in the end, voters saw a plethora of outlandish statements met with incoherence.

Do you want better debates? Sign the petition today!

The debate between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden was so bad that at one point the two men argued over their golf handicap.

Leading up to the debate, 71% of Americans said they wanted a third candidate on the debate stage -- which was nearly everyone who said they wanted debates period.

Voters want more options. But the rules of the CNN debate were designed to be like the rules of US elections:

The rules offered plenty of room for mudslinging and polarization at the expense of problem solving and choice. They served to re-enforce the two-party system in the US.

In his most recent podcast, former presidential candidate and Forward Party co-founder Andrew Yang focused specifically on reported panic in the Democratic Party.

Joined by former presidential candidate Dean Phillips staffer and member of the Forward Party, Zach Graumann, Gruamann said the first thing they could say is:

"Told you so."

"We've been calling this since November, this is why I worked for Dean," said Graumann. "This was the moment I was trying to avoid."

For months, the DNC has asserted that this election is about democracy vs authoritarianism while at the same time doing everything it can to suppress choice.

This started in the primaries. Would-be contenders to Biden for the party's nomination were denied debates, in many cases a place on the ballot, and any visibility.

This included Phillips, a sitting member of Congress.

The party even determined which voters they wanted to count in the nomination process, rendering some as meaningless.

The entire nomination process for both parties was over by Super Tuesday before much of the country had a chance to vote.

Trump has so much influence and control within the GOP that his nomination was all but guaranteed. He didn't even need to show up for debates.

And for millions of voters, they were denied a say completely because they choose to identify outside the two major parties.

If the stated goal is to protect democracy, the question then must be asked, democracy for whom? And on whose terms?

Voters are increasingly realizing that it's not on their terms -- especially under a system where two private corporations can decide that their votes mean nothing.

And when voters aren't put first, they get debates that serve the private interests of corporate sponsors over the public need for substance, nuance, and accountability.

Stewart exclaimed, "This cannot be real life!" And while millions of voters wish they could wake from this nightmare, they can't.

Because this is real life, and it won't get better until voters have a system that empowers choice and encourages competition in all facets of the political process.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  3. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  4. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  5. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  6. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  7. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  8. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  9. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  10. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Voters Agree CNN Debate Was a Trainwreck... And It Is a Reflection of US Elections

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us