So I don't know how many of you have noticed but this year the live debates aren't working. The first debate was OK but the second one was a crap-fest of astronomical proportions. The VP debate doesn't count since it only had 1.5 candidates present. But the debates are broken this year.
Why? Well, the campaign climate is awful. Hillary and the Republicans have taken a gloves off mudslinging stance from the get go and that doesn't really lend itself to civil debate. To make things worse the moderators can't keep the candidates on point for questions. That means we end up with McCain spreading his lies about Obama and then Obama needs to break format to respond. The only way the live debate format will work this year is if they give the moderators the ability to turn off a candidate's microphone and ask them to get back on topic. They aren't allowed to do that.
What I propose is a huge overhaul. First off, there's no reason for the debates to be 100% live. It's not realistic. What we are saying is “Sure, in real life you'll have a half hour minimum to respond to any question ever, plus you'll have a full cabinet of advisors to tell you things, but when we judge you we want off the cuff perfection. NOW!” That doesn't make sense to me. Not only that but since it's all spur of the moment (I know there's preparation but still) that means they can go back and renege on anything. So I've come up with a new, better and more appropriate debate format.
Phase One
When each candidate arrives for the debate are are to be sequestered separate from each other. Each candidate may take 1 advisor along with them.
They will be given a list of all debate questions.
They will be given a generous 20 minutes per question to come up with written responses.
They are required to answer all questions and to write answers that will not exceed 4 minutes in length when read aloud.
Phase Two
The candidates will be brought together in the studio for the live portion of the debate. Their advisors will be brought back stage.
For each question each candidate will read their written responses with no change.
Once both candidates have read their answers the moderator will either let them discuss the differences in their plans or ask a related follow up question.
Phase Three
This will be the standard audience/moderator question with a response from each of the candidates.
However, the moderator is allowed to interrupt and ask them to please return to the topic if they stray.
If they are asked twice to stay on topic and veer off again they are penalized 30 seconds of speaking time for the next question.
When presenting past stances and actions in the government in regards to their opponent they are required to cite a primary source. The logic behind this is if it's true enough to accuse the other candidate of and incorporate into your campaign then you should have gotten it from a reliable primary source to begin with.
That is my proposal. The first phase makes the positions stated more stable and trustworthy than anything they might just happen to say. For instance, at the VP debate Biden, who isn't for same sex marriage but is for same sex couple rights, used the term “marriage” while defending what he thinks all Americans are entitled to. Writing their position down will cut down on incorrect wording.
There is also enough time in there for candidates to respond to each other, but since it comes after the prepared portion these responses can't constitute the majority of each persons' speeches.
Another important addition this would bring is the need for citations. An example of this is how McCain claims that Obama is for teaching sex education to kindergärtners. What the legislation Obama supported really said was that he was for teach age appropriate sex education in public schools (read the full bill here and read a summary of the issue over at Newsweek). So in kindergarten that mean being taught it's not OK to be touched by adults. That brings up the question:
“Why doesn't McCain want little children to know they shouldn't be touched by adults?”
Stephen Colbert claims Obama would be sworn in on a gay baby rather than a bible. I claim that McCain would request to touch a slightly older child than a baby as he's sworn into office.
Also important is that by having time to think and to have an advisor present for the first portion it is much closer to how a president would react on the job. The audience would be able to judge them in a situation much closer to how they'd perform later.
The fact that we can't trust either of the two presidential candidates to actually respond to topics when asked, or to remain civil when left in a room together, doesn't bode well for either of them. It reeks of immaturity, fear mongering and a general lack of decorum and self control that we should require in a president. But since this is what we've got this election we should at least get them to tell us their positions rather than ranting about how they perceive the other guy's platform.
