A Proposal for Debate FOrmat
-
From the RWEC:
Republican candidates and advisers usually believe that debates benefit them because the format and the exposure give their candidates a way to speak directly to voters without Protection Racket Media (PRM) filters. I assume you've figured out by now that this is sheer delusion, thanks to leaving the PRM in charge of these events. The RNC withdrew from the Commission for Presidential Debates over format and control issues, but the commission wasn't the problem. The PRM is the problem. And Republicans have to cut them out of the debates if American voters are ever going to get any substantive value out of them in the future.
How would that work? Allow me to propose a simple model that not only removes moderators entirely, but also provides at least the opportunity for significant discussion of substance rather than zinger production.
First off, host the debate jointly with Democrats and invite all media outlets to televise and broadcast it. Only the two candidates will be on stage -- no moderators, no questions from the outside, no lectures or "fact checks" from anyone except the debaters. Microphones will be managed off-stage and only lightly as necessary. The topic(s) of the debate will be agreed upon between the campaigns beforehand -- economy, foreign policy, health care, fiscal matters, innovation, etc. That will likely require more than one debate in a cycle, but traditionally, presidential cycles feature three debates anyway.
The format will be:
- Candidate 1 speaks on the topic set for 30 minutes
- Candidate 2 asks questions of Candidate 1 for 10 minutes
- Candidate 2 speaks on the topic set for 30 minutes
- Candidate 1 asks questions of Candidate 2 for 10 minutes
- Candidate 2 closing remarks - 2 minutes
- Candidate 1 closing remarks - 2 minutes
Total run time would be 95 minutes, give or take -- about the same amount of time the last two debates took. The times could be adjusted a bit, perhaps in allowing 25 minutes for the main presentation by each candidate and 15 minutes for the question period, where real debate could take place.
What this would produce would be a true debate on real substance. It would disincentivize the impulse to load up on zingers and instead bone up on the actual issues. It would also require voters to nominate candidates that can actually speak at length on policy, coherently. This format provides ample opportunity for opponents to "fact check" their rivals and to force them into extemporaneous defense of their policies and records. In short, it would produce a real debate, controlled by the candidates rather than the PRM, and offer a comprehensive look at the candidates and what they offer American voters.
And it would manage to do all of that without network news anchors turning themselves into partisan, leering game-show hosts in a corrupted and cooked edition of Who Wants to Be a Presidentaire?
-
WOuldnt work.
It would also require voters to nominate candidates that can actually speak at length on policy, coherently.
I think that peoples attention spans are much shorter today. Having President Trump or VP Harris ramble for 30 minutes would not accomplish anything. I dont think that either could be able to speak at length coherently.
