I’ve been mulling this since listening to one of the debates on the radio a few weeks ago. There’s so little IMHO that is actually said regarding issues during a debate that it may be time to rein them in and make the candidates answer the questions instead of rhetoricizing.
To that end I came up with this debate format:
Each candidate would be inside a separate sound-proofed clear walled cell with headphones and a microphone controlled by the host.
Each candidate would be given a short period at the beginning to state his/her general case to the audience.
When asked a question the candidate would be required to give as concrete an answer as possible without waxing philosophical. The host would have the power to cut the candidate off if it became clear that the question wasn’t truly being answered. The candidate would also not be permitted to use the time for one question as a rebuttal to a previous one by another candidate.
Not that I think any of the candidates would agree to these rules, of course.
Alan Keyes would get one and only one chance to prove he could actually speak about the issues. If he failed that his mike would be disconnected and his cell flooded with nitrous oxide. (Hey, at least he’d go out happy.)
Thats pretty much what I would do except I would add to #3.
If the canidate starting giving me platitudes I would cut off their mic and tell them they have 5-10 seconds to start giving me a real answer or their mic would be cut for the rest of the debate and they would just have to sit there looking stupid the rest of the time.
The problem is that politicians get plenty of practice at avoiding the question.
“I’m glad you asked me that, because it’s an important question for our country. My position is clear and unchanging. We need to remember the values embodied in our Constitution and the ideals behind them. I know I speak for the majority when I say that I will not give in on this issue.”
To which I, as host would reply. “Great. Now tell us what your position is. I’m not moving on until you do, so either continue the double talk or give us a straight answer and by the way, did I mention that glass booth is locked from the outside and oh look, here’s the key.”
Firstly I have explained my position clearly.
Secondly I find your unjustified imprisonment completely anti-American. Clearly you have no idea how to debate.
Our great country is founded on liberty. We have rights in this glorious Republic.
At which point I flood your chamber with nitrous oxide and move on to the next question reminding the other candidates that they had agreed in advance to participate and it’s not my fault if their lawyers failed to mention the fine print.
First, each candidate’s podium would be rigged like a giant joy buzzer. You go over time, I hit the buzzer, and America gets to see you squeal like a little girl. Secondly, if I feel you are “skirting” the issues, I get to have an enormous fluffy white tutu that you have to put on. You get to stand in front of your podium and pose for pictures in said outfit until you answer the question in a straightforward manner, as voted on by the audience. Piss the audience off, you may get to stand there for the rest of the debate.
Further problems will be resolved by bonking participants over the head with a hollow cardboard tube. Just enough mass to get the person’s attention, but not enough to do harm, with the added bonus of fun sound effects.
Any candidate who can preform well under these conditions deserves to win the presidency.
