Time for a new debate format.
I caught the final few minutes of the Republican presidential debate on CNN after getting home from work tonight. It occurred to me that television has been using the same debate format ever since Kennedy debated Nixon back in 1960: questions from a panel with one-to-two minute answers, and in the case of a small number of candidates, a rebuttal. The original incarnation of the American electoral debate was the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1858 Illinois Senate race a century and a half ago. Lincoln and Douglas would argue the morality of slavery for hours at a time in each of Illinois' congressional districts.
Obviously letting ten candidates go at it without time limits or moderators directing the debate isn't feasible today. But one minute responses to questions about complex issues like terrorism, immigration, or the economy? A candidate can't possibly express his own ideas or critique those of his adversary in such short time. This isn't to say that candidates won't try--but in doing so, they often have to oversimplify their ideas and, as is increasingly the case, dumb down the ideas themselves.
So here's what I'd suggest. First of all, completely ditch these ten candidate early debates. They're completely unnecessary. Don't even start thinking about it for another six months or so when half of these candidates are gone.
Second, at that point, cut the number of questions and increase the amount of time candidates are given to discuss their ideas. Give them eight minutes apiece per question. And if there are only two or three candidates in the mix, throw in some three or four minute rebuttals. That way candidates won't be saved by the bell. Make Mitt Romney explain what he would do about immigration instead of simply taking a minute to declare his opposition to "amnesty." Any former debaters reading this might have an idea where eight minutes and three minutes come from. But think about it--would debate have been a worthwhile activity if it was a string of pithy one minute back-and-forth retorts? Of course not. People want substance from their candidates and the only way they're going to get it is if candidates have adequate time. We don't need twelve questions on immigration or terrorism; you get the same canned response each time anyway. I'd rather have one in-depth response than seven or eight abbreviated ones.
Third, let candidates pose questions to one another. Give them some control over the direction of the debate rather than leaving it in the hands of Brit Hume and Wolf Blitzer. It is, after all, their campaign. They should have at least some control over the message.
Obviously letting ten candidates go at it without time limits or moderators directing the debate isn't feasible today. But one minute responses to questions about complex issues like terrorism, immigration, or the economy? A candidate can't possibly express his own ideas or critique those of his adversary in such short time. This isn't to say that candidates won't try--but in doing so, they often have to oversimplify their ideas and, as is increasingly the case, dumb down the ideas themselves.
So here's what I'd suggest. First of all, completely ditch these ten candidate early debates. They're completely unnecessary. Don't even start thinking about it for another six months or so when half of these candidates are gone.
Second, at that point, cut the number of questions and increase the amount of time candidates are given to discuss their ideas. Give them eight minutes apiece per question. And if there are only two or three candidates in the mix, throw in some three or four minute rebuttals. That way candidates won't be saved by the bell. Make Mitt Romney explain what he would do about immigration instead of simply taking a minute to declare his opposition to "amnesty." Any former debaters reading this might have an idea where eight minutes and three minutes come from. But think about it--would debate have been a worthwhile activity if it was a string of pithy one minute back-and-forth retorts? Of course not. People want substance from their candidates and the only way they're going to get it is if candidates have adequate time. We don't need twelve questions on immigration or terrorism; you get the same canned response each time anyway. I'd rather have one in-depth response than seven or eight abbreviated ones.
Third, let candidates pose questions to one another. Give them some control over the direction of the debate rather than leaving it in the hands of Brit Hume and Wolf Blitzer. It is, after all, their campaign. They should have at least some control over the message.
Labels: Election 2008, Forensics
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 6/05/2007 08:37:00 PM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
4 Comments:
"People want substance from their candidates and the only way they're going to get it is if candidates have adequate time."
I don't mean to be the resident cynic here, but I think you're assuming a lot with this statement. For a former debater like you or me, yeah, we get annoyed with the blippy one minute responses to how a candidate is going to overhaul the entire Social Security system because we both know there's no substance to the response.
For the average American citizen, they could really care less. With ridiculously low turnout rates in voting (even during the highly contested 2004 elections were emotions and passions were high on both 'sides' of it) in the 'premier' democracy in the world, do you honestly think that a large majority of the people deciding these races care so much about substance as opposed to what "sounds good" to everyone else?
Wiedmann actually had us look at Thomas Cronin's theories about the differences between skills necessary for election as opposed to the skills necessary to actually be the President of the United States in my American Presidency class a few years ago. Those skills were not the same, and the American electorate focuses on the skills necessary for election far more than they focus on the candidate's actual competency during an election year.
I disagree. I genuinely believe that people want substance, but they also have dwindling attention spans. The two don't mesh well. And as a consequence of news programs treating news like they do entertainment, all of the networks pander to short attention spans and thus exacerbate the problem.
Simply stop doing it. I have enough faith in the American electorate to believe that they can pay attention to someone for more than a minute and a half.
I think after each of these debates, the American public should be allowed to vote one candidate out of the race, a la Survivor
"I'm sorry, Mr. Gravel, the tribe has spoken, please bring us your torch."
Think how many more people would watch if we could do that!!!!
"I genuinely believe that people want substance, but they also have dwindling attention spans. The two don't mesh well."
I would think that one wouldn't need to consciously try to pay attention if they were, in fact, actually interested in the substance of candidate's positions.
For example, it didn't take too much for prof's to keep my attention in the courses I took for my majors. However, when I was in say, astronomy (which I took pass/fail), it was more difficult for me to pay attention. The explanation simply lies in where my interest level is.
Post a Comment
<< Home