# Elections: How do we make it work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 25, 2019, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989 "2019-11-25T22:17:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/21 "2019-12-02T21:47:46Z")
Much like Great Debates, as long as the threads are moderated without bias and the rules are clear I’m not sure how much better the forum could be. Maybe get rid of a bit of the most over the top demographic attacks could be a slight improvement with regards to the tone. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/22 "2019-12-06T19:29:17Z")
I’ve mentioned in ATMB that I think that silly, disparaging nicknames (Obummer, Tramp, Hitlery, Shrub) have no place in the debate forums, but that idea was already shot down. So, I’ll suggest that broad-brush attacks on Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals should not be allowed in Elections. Statements like, “well, Republicans have no heart and would \” or “Democrats are all socialist crazies and will \” almost never add anything to a debate and is just a rant. So, it belongs in the Pit. Let’s debate the issues without the name-calling and broad brush attacks. Also, I’d love to see tighter moderation of sea-lioning, goal-post moving, and gish galloping. It’s maddening to try and debate someone who refuses to be pinned down as to their actual position and points. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2019, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/23 "2019-12-07T05:31:34Z")
gish galloping? Color me bemused. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2019, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/24 "2019-12-07T12:57:31Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > gish galloping? > > Color me bemused. I’m not sure if you’re bemused because you don’t think it happens here or because you don’t know what it means. In case it’s the latter: > **[Gish gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)** > > The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently w... > [@](#): > > The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution. Here in Elections and GD, a poster will make some bad argument which is quickly shot down. Rather than acknowledging the bad argument, the poster then moves to another bad argument. Rinse and repeat. You can’t pin them down to a specific argument and they won’t acknowledge the holes in the previous arguments. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/25 "2019-12-08T18:14:29Z")
Allowing a thread to go on for almost 6000 posts is not good. If that’s been said above then you can disregard my two cents since it would be clear that I can’t even be bothered to read 24 posts. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/26 "2019-12-19T05:03:14Z")
There should be a minimum standard for citations; i.e. not the level of a PhD dissertation, but more than facebook and twitter. For both GD and Elections. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/27 "2019-12-22T18:56:31Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > There should be a minimum standard for citations; i.e. not the level of a PhD dissertation, but more than facebook and twitter. > > For both GD and Elections. But what if the Tweet or the Facebook post is the cite? There’s no doubt that candidates and their supporters are using social media. There were tweets about Warren’s own high dollar wine fundraiser within 3 minutes of her bringing it up on the debate stage, for example. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/28 "2019-12-22T18:58:24Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Allowing a thread to go on for almost 6000 posts is not good. > > If that’s been said above then you can disregard my two cents since it would be clear that I can’t even be bothered to read 24 posts. I agree completely. I try to start a fresh thread in elections once one has fallen down the page and there’s new information about a candidate to discuss. Slogging through a ten page post about a candidate that goes back to February is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/29 "2019-12-23T15:44:43Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > But what if the Tweet or the Facebook post is the cite? There’s no doubt that candidates and their supporters are using social media. There were tweets about Warren’s own high dollar wine fundraiser within 3 minutes of her bringing it up on the debate stage, for example. Do you consider Tweets to be “serious news reporting” as one poster (I don’t remember who) claimed? ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989/30 "2019-12-23T18:06:55Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Do you consider Tweets to be “serious news reporting” as one poster (I don’t remember who) claimed? Tweets from an elected official or a candidate are news, yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elections-how-do-we-make-it-work/843989.md?page=1)