None of the candidates, "serious" or "non-serious", are well served by the current debate formats

[AlGore-08.com]

To begin with, I'd like to point out something that should be obvious to even the most casual student of history. Ideas and political movements do not suddenly appear on the scene, mature and wildly popular. They begin as fringe ideas espoused by visionaries (otherwise known as "radicals", "loony-toons" and/or "minorities"), who work years or decades or even centuries before the idea is adopted by the culture. For example, the first anti-slavery society in United States was formed in 1775; but we did not elect an anti-slavery Presidential candidate until 1860, and the 13th Amendment was not adopted until 1865.

It does a huge disservice to the country to try and develop a primary debate system that excludes new or unpopular ideas, or candidates who have not (yet) made the "top tier".

Yes, the current system of "debates" is a farce. Dumbing complex issues down until they are "yes or no" questions and demanding that candidates "raise their hand" if they support a catch phrase is criminally irresponsible. But there are other ways to improve the debates than to limit the number of participants. Some suggestions:

1.) Limit the debate to a single, specific topic. Why not have one debate on Iraq policy. One debate on energy policy. One debate on education. Etc., etc., etc. (Some of us are old enough to remember when this was common practice.)

2.) Actually use a debate format. Don't ever allow candidates to have an entire "debate" which is limited to statements which cannot refer to any of the other candidates.

3.) Have longer debates and more of them.

4.) Candidates: use the debates to explain your plans. Instead of trying to convince us you look the most Presidential by having the most polished performance, why don't you try looking the most Presidential by explaining your proposed policies. Instead of telling us in a sincere way that you support the troops (who doesn't, besides Smirk?), why not explain exactly how you're going to get us out of Iraq. Why we need to start leaving when you think we should start leaving, not earlier or later. How long the operation should take. How your plan keeps the troops from being in greater harm and Iraq from melting down even worse.

5.) Candidates: restrain your challenges/attacks to matters of substance. If the candidate on your right has a health care proposal that will bankrupt the country - - say that. And back up your contention. I know the temptation is great to focus on landing the perfect zinger that will live forever - - the new "You're no Jack Kennedy". But you know what? The guy who said "You're no Jack Kennedy" lost his race by a landslide.

6.) Have old fashioned internet debates. Have the same policy question sent to all the candidates and post them at a private website. Give the candidates 24 hours to send in any rebuttals they feel are necessary. Then publish all the answers on a public website. Candidates are allowed to link back to information on their own website, like "as I explain in detail in my education plan (link to education plan)".

7.) Candidates: Update your campaign website so that it contains actual content. Your facebook links and iPod lists are cool and all, but how about posting - - in detail as well as in summary - - your plan to stop global warming?

8.) Have new fashioned internet debates. Video streaming allows the candidates to debate each other from anywhere on the planet.

9.) Find actual frigging moderators for the debates. Find people who understand the point of these debates is not to catch the candidates with the kind of "gotcha!" questions that will be talked about in DC cocktail party circles for years - - nor is it to pitch you endless softballs. If you can't find a journalist with the integrity of Walter Cronkite, hire the country's top speech and debate teacher to do the honors. You're not supposed to need a "star" journalist to draw viewers. The candidates are supposed to be the draw.

10.) Work toward 100% public financing of elections, with a great deal more free air time for each candidate. Level the playing field so every qualified person has a chance to reach the Oval Office - - and so your favorite candidate will still be able to run even if the big money donors dump him/her in favor of your least favorite Democrat ever...

[IndianaGreen]

1. The League of Women Voters did a better job at running debates, until

the corporate media and the political parties decided to control the format of the debates.

You make excellent points. The only losers are the voters.

[rinsd]

7. Totally agree (nt)

[il_lilac]

2. great ideas

we need to quit treating the presidency as a popularity contest. I want to know what they will do (and how) to get us out of this mess.

[frogcycle]

3. Thanks

promoting a return to reason, huh?


It might be unmanageable, given the competitive circumstances, but I would LOVE to see a round-table discussion with all the candidates and one topic. No doubt some would dominate the conversation, and others would cry "unfair" but if the moderator could just do what a meeting facilitator does in "brainstorming" session in business, let the group dynamics drive the meeting with just enough control to keep it from becoming a fistfight or a takeover by one person... you'd really get to see the personalities, get a sense of how they would function as a leader

[Catchawave]

4. MoveOn get's it :)

I like their one topic forums that brings people together in private homes and public places to watch the candidates' pre-recorded responses. Much more gratifying than watching the likes of Chris Matthews ask the money question (aka "gotcha")he can replay ad nauseum on his show, out of context and in spin mode.

The current live formats resemble a game show. I think a DUer posted that a Hollywood Squares format would work the best...lol. (May have read it in the DUzys?)

[welshTerrier2]

5. we need real debates

great post, AlGore-08.com ... you've hit all the key points ... openness to new ideas, focus on issues instead of gotcha's, public financing of elections ... excellently done ...

this is a "rerun" from a post I made last night on this topic ... it hits many of the same themes ...

I start from the premise that all candidates have constituencies. Those constituencies have a right to be represented during the primaries and in the debates. Failure to do so is undemocratic it hurts the eventual nominee.

Also, certain candidates are more mainstream and propose ideas that reflect the status quo while others represent change and may be presenting ideas that are new to many voters. New ideas deserve a full and honest hearing in the marketplace. To achieve that, we should seek formats that ensure that all ideas from all candidates will get a full airing including responses from all candidates.

Here are just a few ideas of ways we might do better. There just is not enough time, especially given the number of candidates, to adhere to the more common formats. One or two minute responses do a huge disservice to voters. Let's do away with that format completely. You're also not going to be able to hold 4 or 8 hour long debates. Something else is needed.

What I'd like to see is one topic a month. Let's say this month the party chose health care for example. And then I'd like to see a sort of round robin taped for the internet of each candidate spending 1/2 hour with all the other candidates, one at a time. So, for example, if there were nine candidates, any given candidate would sign up for 8 1/2 hour sessions for a total of 4 hours a month. That's a whopping 1 hour a week of debate time for each candidate. That should be easy to arrange. This format would then yield every possible combination of candidates on every topic selected. It will never happen because the "high name recogition and big money" candidates don't want to give voice to less mainstream ideas. There's not much to be gained going up against a lowly rated candidate. The downside risk is much greater.

That's the way or at least the goal I would have. There are probably an infinite number of combinations and permutations that could approach some of these objectives. One thing's for sure, the current system stinks. Even lowly Mike Gravel deserves a real response to his ideas. Right now, he's just ignored. I'd like a response to the question he posed today: How can we expect candidates to really make the changes in health care policy we need when their campaigns are financed by Big Insurance. It's wrong to allow the others to just ignore him. Many of us would like an answer to that question.

Finally, to directly answer the question in the OP, YES, I would like to keep all the candidates to discuss as many ideas as possible on as many topics as possible. Debates, even later in the campaign, should be about an ongoing discussion of ideas. All ideas. They should not be a narrow discussion between the two best funded candidates who receive most of their money from the same lobbyists. We won't learn anything useful from that.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Excellent points A.G., and much needed.

Thanks for the thread.

Kicked and recommended.