NATIONAL: The last of the three dates concluded yesterday evening and we are withing a few weeks of election day at last. I don't know about the rest of you, but I tire of the long race leading up to the Presidential election and all of the misleading information by the parties that comes with it.
Last night’s debate returned to the original format, both candidates standing at podiums and a single questioner. I much prefer the format used for the second debate where an audience of voters asked the questions and the candidates were more or less free to move around and somewhat interact. It would be good if somehow the debates were taken out of the control of the two political parties. I’d like to see the two debates, one in September and the other in October, each lasting two hours, with the top four candidates appearing. The candidates for the debate being picked by the electorate a month before the scheduled debate. Questioners for the September debate would be done by a panel of six from the news media, and the October debate by an audience of individuals not registered with a political party. The audience would be made up of an registered voter from each state. Each would be given a number which would be drawn randomly from a hat to ask a question of the candidates.
I would even suggest that each of the candidates include the person they chose for their vice-president and a third person of their choice. The candidate would be required to give a two minute answer directly to the question without deviating to a preferred subject. A two-personal panel chosen from Supreme Court justices would moderate the responses and implement a buzzard whenever the candidate deviated from the subject, turning off the micron phone and immediately going to the next the candidate. This would eliminate the common answer, “but, before I answer your question, I would like to comment on” which allows the candidate to insert what they want to talk instead of responding directly to the subject. Each candidate would be allowed a one minute rebuttal which may be given by any member of the candidates team.
I would also enforce a rule that requires TV cameras to show only a close views of the questioner, the initial response of the candidate, or an action by the moderate. A single broad view of all of the candidates would shown during rebuttals. The point is to eliminate any subjective influence of the camera catching a candidate's visual appearance that may or may not be an indication of their opinion or how they feel. The fact that one smiles and another seemingly frowns, doesn't speak factually to what they are thinking at the moment. I've often expressed a frown at the thought that I wish I had said something differently after the fact, and have done so while someone was talking about a completely different subject.
The whole point of televised political debates should be to help voters understand the facts regarding the positions of the candidates on important subjects, and their validity as reasonable expectations. It shouldn’t be based on looks, debating skills, or whatever is in the best interest of the two major political parties.
to Magazine@Bay-Journal.com
Index to news items ...
