Ideas for Improving the Debates

[NYCGirl]

John Dickerson of Slate asked readers to send him their ideas on how to improve the candidate debates. The article outlines the major suggestions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2166144/nav/tap1/

Excerpt:

Just the facts: How about fact-checking for questionable assertions? And penalties for candidates who gave evasive or meaningless answers about the loveliness of America and all her freedom-loving people? Here's how such a debate could work: In a first round, journalists would question candidates. Those answers would then be fact-checked by a panel. During the fact-checking, candidates would be allowed to say whatever they wanted in a second round. (This free gab period would be a sweetener that might entice them to participate.) In the third round, the fact-checking panel would make candidates defend their distortions, ask for clarifications, or point out which questions the candidates had ducked altogether. If the fact-checkers couldn't work that fast, perhaps there would be a second debate devoted to the answers offered in the first.

Give the audience control: Various readers suggested American Idol- or Survivor-type methods for voting candidates off the stage if their answers were no good. One reader wanted the audience to control the candidates' microphones, cutting them off when they got too windy. Another suggested that the participants be privy to their evolving audience scores as the debate progressed. That way, they might rescue themselves from being sent down the tubes. Another option would be to allow the audience or a panel of judges to rank the performances afterward in categories like consistency, honesty, and truthfulness, or take away points for evasion, deception, or excessive flop sweat.

Off the network: No one stood up for the network moderators. Lots of people suggested Jon Stewart would make a good host. Others wanted to move the debates to PBS or C-Span, or revive the sponsorship of the League of Women Voters to strip away commercial self-promotion. Some suggested bringing in a panel of academics to fashion the questions. That's got a downside, though: It would inevitably launch a spiraling meta debate among academics about which questions to choose and we'd then have to host a debate about that.

Let the candidates question each other: This would lead to entertaining sparring as each candidate tried to uncover his or her opponents' weaknesses. Since a president should know which questions to ask, we would learn something from the questioning as well. To minimize the trick questions, the candidates could be forced to ask and answer questions on just a single topic. They might still start off with a few zingers, but ultimately would have to show some depth of understanding about the issue and some ability to listen to the answers being given by their opponents. Grandstanding could also be limited by not letting candidates know beforehand the topic or which opponent they'd question. Perhaps there could be a kind of reverse "Secret Santa" approach, with candidates preparing questions without knowing which of their opponents would get them.

[YOY]

1. I'd prefer an "answer the damn question" approach

Every time a candidate evades the question by spewing pseudo-patriotic drivel...it would make the debates so much more relevant.

[NYCGirl]

3. That's covered in the first paragraph:

"How about fact-checking for questionable assertions? And penalties for candidates who gave evasive or meaningless answers about the loveliness of America and all her freedom-loving people?"

[SaveElmer]

2. How about a Round Robin tournament...

Each one debate one other 2 or 3 times at different venues...

[NoPasaran]

4. How about a debate between the three candidates who have a shot at winning?

:hide: