Voting for president is a very important part of American culture. Our ancestors fought for the right to vote, and we need to protect that right. If you vote based solely off of gossip and memes appearing on Facebook, your vote will be uninformed and could help cause a poor leader to be elected. As stated in “Cord cutters cut off from presidential debates,” televised presidential debates are the most important factor influencing Americans’ vote (Taves). Restricting debates to cable news channels is unfair to many people, particularly younger generations and the poor. It’s imperative that direct access to live presidential debates through the internet is available for those who don’t have access to the cable news stations recording them.
Younger generations’ votes are very important. While older people often care more about researching presidential candidates and voting for the one they truly believe to be best, younger people are going to be the ones affected more by changes made by presidents. There are already so many young people who ignore elections or vote based off of something petty like appearance that the ones who truly do want to be informed and watch debates should not be cut off just because they choose the internet and Netflix over wasting money on cable. The goal should be to get as many people as possible to be informed voters, not to restrict information to those who pay.
One issue that every president will have to deal with is things that affect low-income families. Thus, families that can’t pay for cable should have access to presidential debates as well. Minimum wage, health care, and education are some of the biggest issues that greatly affect the poor. As with younger generations, many poor families don’t bother to vote. However, the ones who want to, and want to be informed about their candidate, should be able to watch presidential debates on the internet if they can’t afford cable.
The only reason there would be to restrict access to presidential debates is to cause a skewed election. You would have to think the candidate you’re voting for would be less likely to win with a larger sample size of voters, and that the older generation that still pays for cable are biased toward the person you want to win. And if that is your reasoning for being against internet access for debates, it’s blatantly easy to see the problem with that. Presidents need to be fairly elected, with as much information about them as possible being available to everyone.
Cable companies and TV channels don’t benefit from not letting the debate be shown elsewhere. Lower class families aren’t suddenly going to have the money for cable and start spending it just to see the debates, and young generations are likely to just ignore the debates if they can’t easily access them. Restricting access only causes there to be fewer people who care about voting, and fewer people making an informed decision about who they’re voting for. The former is only a good thing for candidates who can’t hope to win with a diverse group of voters, and by that fact shouldn’t be president in the first place, and the latter isn’t good for any president who doesn’t have something superficial as the main thing drawing people to them. Streaming presidential debates to the internet would allow everyone to be an informed voter, and wouldn’t harm news channels’ profits.
Taves, Max. “Cord cutters cut off from presidential debates.” CNET. CBS Interactive, 9 Nov. 2015. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.