Is there any particular reason that moderators are needed for political debates? ISTM that all they do is provide for distractions and for accusations of bias. I don’t see any reason they can’t be dispensed with entirely, and the debates conducted entirely by the candidates themselves, via time limited microphones.
Here’s how it would work. Each candidate gets whatever time (let’s say 3 minutes, for purposes of the thread, but it could be anything) to make their points, respond to whatever the other guy said, and bring up any new issues they want. During that time, the other guy’s microphone is dead, so they have the floor to themselves and can’t be interrupted. After 3 minutes, their mic goes dead, and the other guy’s mic is activated for 3 minutes.
Would be a lot more complicated for debates with more than two candidates. Could probably work around it, but let’s just contemplate a two person debate now. What are the advantages of the current system over this proposed system?
The primary function of a moderator, aside from enforcing whatever rules are agreed upon, is to give structure to the debate by asking questions that force the participants down relevant lines of inquiry, particularly on subjects where one or both participants have positions or views that are complicated or controversial. An unstructured ‘debate’ would likely just have candidates repeating their signature positions ad nauseam in what would be little more than competing stump speeches, which is not informative or particularly interesting.
One of the things a mod does is give the other person a chance to respond to something. An automated system wouldn’t be able to do that.
I think that would be awful. Can you imagine how a candidate that has no respect for the debate or the rules of debate asking the other person a question. They could drag a giant poisoned well onto the stage and pull questions from that with no recourse.
I think unmodded debates would be, at best, mediocre and at worst, quickly devolve into the people just screaming at each other, declaring they’re right or their opponent is wrong and people stomping off stage or clamming up in hopes the other person buries themself.
I could see a hybrid, however. Have a mod, but all they do is ask questions, allow the candidates to reply to each other, make sure they both/all get even time on each question and otherwise keep things civil. But beyond that, they don’t do anything else. No editorializing, they can’t override the time limits before the mic cuts out etc. They’d be more like a referee than a moderator.
It would be very much in the interest of each candidate to ask the other one questions on topics where the other candidate’s positions are complicated or controversial, and that’s undoubtedly what you would see.
The idea of having Candidate A’s mic go dead for a set time while Candidate B’s mic goes live would give the other one a chance to respond (and also avoid the interruptions and shout-downs that you sometimes see in debates these days). Not sure what your post is about.
The other candidate should be able to respond to that. To the contrary, it would give the country a chance to see the candidates for what they are and decide whether they want a poisoned well/QAnon guy or not.
The country already had more than enough of a chance to see that about Trump, and over 60 million people decided they liked it.
All this would do is make it impossible to have an actual discussion of policy, which is what we really need. Any non-QAnon-crazy candidate who agreed to such a debate format would have to be so stupid that they shouldn’t be President, either.
Candidates would ask questions of their opponent where they could create or amplify controversy. For instance, “What was in your 31.000 deleted emails?” and could just ask the same question over and over, not actually expecting an answer but just to pander to the questioner’s base. By the same token, both candidates could avoid issues neither of them wants to talk about, such as federal debt management, or the validity and effectiveness of the federal War on Drugs, or what the actual threat of international terrorism is versus domestic deaths attributable to financial instability and infrastructure failure. That current moderators also don’t press on these issues is an artifact that both candidates agree on topics that are not to be addressed which begs for truly independent moderation, but that is a separate issue that would not be improved upon by removing moderation altogether.
Essentially, what you are recommending is the CNN Crossfire format, about which there is clear and irrefutable criticism:
Candidates have unlimited amounts of time at rallies, on television ads, and in press conferences to talk about whatever the hell they want. A debate is a formalized event with a formal structure.
Now it’s true that debates don’t necessarily need moderators. The famous Lincoln-Douglass debates didn’t have any. But that only works if there’s a genuine expectation that the pre-determined rules will be followed, the topic will be adhered to, and civility will take precedence over outbursts.
That won’t happen here, so we have moderators to at least make the attempt to maintain structure.
In 1992 Phil Donohue did exactly what you suggested. He introduced Democratic candidates Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown, then sat back and let them talk. Of course, Clinton and Brown were both policy wonks and perfectly happy to discuss things like the Rhodes scholar and Jesuit seminarian they were.
The counterargument is the first Biden-Trump debate, which even with a moderator, turned into what CNN’s Dana Bash succinctly described as a “shitstorm.”
It would also be in their interest to ask the other person questions like ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ or ‘why do you still use drugs?’ or completely misrepresent their position on a topic and ask them about that. I understand what you’re getting at, I just don’t think it would happen. Especially when one candidate knows (or thinks) they intimidate the other (think Trump vs Biden or Clinton) and keep in mind, the actual answers don’t matter as much as how their base interprets them.
Think about the courtroom scene in My Cousin Vinny when the lawyer asked Mona Lisa a trick question. Imagine if the judge cut her off after she said she couldn’t answer it and she was never given the opportunity give us the rundown on how it would have been done (setting the timing IIRC) if it wasn’t ‘a bullshit question’.
What I’m talking about is when the mod asks a question. Person A gets 2 minutes then Person B gets 2 minutes. But often times the mod will say ‘Person A, would you like to reply to B’s comment about [something]?’. An automated system wouldn’t allow that.
It’s not that they should be able to respond to it, it’s that they should never have been asked the question in the first place.
In their ads and rallies they can talk for however long they want about whatever they want. IMO, when it comes to a debate, that’s the time for both people to be asked the exact same question and be forced to answer it right then and there. On the assumption that they have a good idea about what the questions will be, given them a little bit of time to respond directly to each other, IMO, shows how well they understand what they’re talking about as opposed to regurgitating a memorized 2 minute speech.
Look back at the Trump/Biden and Trump/Clinton debates. His base was perfectly happy with his behavior at those events. Now imagine how they’d be with no moderator. It won’t take more than a few election cycles before they’re so off the rails that we don’t even bother with them (at least not unmodded ones).
At least that’s my guess. Again, I can see a hybrid form of modded/unmodded debates. But to have no one at all, I don’t think would work.
If, for no other reason, you really do need someone that presents on live TV and is comfortable doing so in order to keep everything moving along.
Here is the C-SPAN coverage fo that debate. I haven’t watched the entire video but from sampling it at few minute intervals it sounds very much like each of the candidates is just reiterating basic talking points. They do challenge each other where they differ but the problem with such a format is that they aren’t challenged on issues where they may agree or are in tacit agreement to not discuss particular issues that may be of relevance to voters. In general, the theatre of debates is to discuss hot button issues that get a lot of press but to avoid complex issues of substance. Of course, it is difficult to make nuanced positions in a short answer format, and the majority of the electorate has little tolerance for or foundational knowledge necessary to interpret deep policy discussions anyway, but “self-moderation” is basically an invitation to avoid discussing real problems that are beyond soundbites.
Another big problem with an unmodded debate is the matter of which person gets the last 3 minutes. That seems like it would be a serious issue. If I get to finish and you have to just stand there and listen to me, while making faces and/or shaking your fists at me, that is a major advantage for me.
To be fair, that’s also the problem with moderated debates. Pivoting any question you’re asked to the answer you want to give is part of the political art.
Maybe in addition to turning off your mic when it’s not your turn*, we should also pull a curtain closed so no one can watch you either.
*Out of curiosity (because I don’t know enough about debates to have an answer to this), other than Trump, has leaving the mics on ever been a big problem?
Yes, yes it is. A skilled moderator or comedian with a DGAF attitude will press home the question regardless of diversions but as we’ve seen even when moderators have tried to impose rules and force answers it rarely results in unvarnished honesty. But completely unmoderated debates would quickly degrade either into political sniping or the parties reiterating their pet issues and positions without reference to dispute. For what little that such debates are worth anything at all (has anyone actually changed their intended vote based upon a debate performance?) allowing them to be pure puppet theatre does not improve them.
That video! Talk about a more innocent time. After Jon Stewart pleaded with Carlson to stop hurting the country, he has now gone on to trying to get people not to get vaccinated, while being vaccinated himself.
