Debate Format
I watched the presidential debate tonight between Brock Obama and John McCain. Yes I was bored. I had heard all of the same sayings from each of the candidates, and I am sure that if I went to one of the fact check websites I would find that both told half of the truth most of the time.
The problem with the current debate format is they allow each candidate to play Monday-morning-quarterback on every issue. "If I had been in charge, X wouldn’t have happened. Blah blah blah. I therefore have such great judgment. Blah blah blah. Although I have no idea what will really happen with the [economy, war, country] if my policies are enacted, here is what will happen. Blah blah blah."
What do we really learn about the candidates from these debates? Hardly anything.
So I propose a new debate format.
1. Go back to policy style debates. In other words, one narrow topic only per night. Each candidate selects a topic to present a plan on. Iraq, sub-prime loan crisis, etc., selected from a large pool of sufficiently narrow topics. The candidate who selects the topic is the negative side. Affirmative gets 20 minutes to lay out their position. 5 minutes cross examination period to cross examine the affirmative position. 20 minute alternate position proposed. 5 minute cross examination period to cross examine the alternate position. Then the opponents alternate between 4 rounds of rebuttal periods of 5 minutes each with the affirmative having the last say.
This means no moderator. No silly questions that cannot be answered in 90 seconds. When a candidate is out of time, their mike is automatically shut off with no extensions. One topic gets thoroughly explored and the candidates must give details about "their plans."
2. One debate is a completely fictitious fact pattern scenario. Each candidate is given the scenario some predetermined amount of time prior to the debate. Then each candidate sets forth a plan for dealing with the situation in a way that that other candidate is not apprised of the other candidate’s plan until after giving their plan. Then the candidates interact rebutting the other candidate’s plans. A coin toss determines who is gets the last say.
These two debate suggestions, while not perfect, require candidates to demonstrate their judgment. Ultimately, what a debate is about is deciding who has the best judgment, which translates into plans. We know what their parties are, and we generally know their platforms. I get sick of hearing the candidates become demagogues, promising what they and the rest of the world know they can never deliver in vague statements that have no practical meaning.
Let’s hear them think on their feet and argue the pros and cons of their positions. Let’s see what they will do in a fictitious situation that calls for immediate decisions (e.g., Turkey gets attacked by Israel — Turkey being a NATO ally requires us to consider the attack an attack against us by one of our non-Nato strongest allies… what would you do??)
October 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I am sick, sick, sick, sick of this election. There is going to be so much voter fraud that dangling chads will seem like a dream. To top it off, I went to my facebook page and was assaulted with Byron Elton’s STUPID ranting about Obama and what a liar Palin is–he’s from Canada and can’t even vote!! So shut up jerk.
Can’t wait for Nov. 12.
Now that was random…
October 9th, 2008 at 7:22 am
For all these wealthy people who are so pro-Obama. Why don’t they put their money where their mouth is and donate 2/3 of their income for taxes. If they are so keen on socialism and the so-called “fairness” doctrine, let them ante up before they make my ante up.