What US presidential debate format would you like to see?

Politics & Elections
1

I have two formats for the debates between Clinton and Trump (and/or their Veep choices) – the first is somewhat unlikely, I think, while the second is very unlikely.

OK, my memory is poor, but I seem to recall that in the Vice President debate in 2008, when asked a question, Palin said she didn’t want to talk about that and just talked about something else (I’d guess how she and McCain should get our votes because they were a couple of mavericks). At any rate, this really bothered me – that’s not debates are supposed to work.

So my first idea for a debate format is to have a panel of nonpartisan, or at least bipartisan, judges. If a majority of the judges finds the candidate isn’t answering the question, his or her mic goes off and the TV cameras switch to the other candidate. Whatever time that candidate still had is lost.

Because, let’s face it, while Palin was more upfront about it, every candidate skews the question to a topic he or she wants to answer. One who is uncomfortable talking about foreign affairs and prefers to get the message about domestic affairs out, when asked a question about terrorism will say something like, “Terrorism is of course a serious problem. But the number of US citizens who die each year from poor health care greatly exceeds those who die from terrorist acts. What we need is to devote more time and money to our failing health care system…” Conversely, a candidate who wants to talk about foreign affairs rather than domestic affairs, when asked about the health care system, will say something like, “Health care is of course a serious problem, but it pales when compared to the threat of terrorist acts…”

I call this “The Answer the Damn Question Already Debate” and prefer it over any lame “Town Hall Meeting” format.

My second debate idea is “Let’s Go to the Tape.” All questions would be regarding something the candidate said publicly during the campaign, and if the candidate tried to claim he or she never said that, well, we’d go to the tape. That’s my idea of an entertaining debate.

2

If you primary goal is entertainment, should props be allowed on stage?
For example, say baseball bats?

3

I’m not too happy with the “Let’s Go to the Tape” idea. It will all be Trump video, Trump clips, and constant Trump free advertising.

4

I want Maury Povich to moderate.

“You said you would cut taxes. The lie detector said… that was a lie.”

5

I think there will be props, like breakaway podiums and stage glass. Anyone remember Trumpy Wumpy’s wrestling days?

6

It’s up to the moderator to turn the debate back to the subject if necessary.

7

Thunderdome.

8

Yes, this. A moderator who will actually say, “Whoa… You didn’t answer the question.”

Also a moderator who will not permit them to interrupt each other. That just turns it into a shouting match, which sucks potatoes.

9

Pistols at twenty paces.

10

If it is one of those debates with a timer I want the mic to cut off when the timer hits 0:00.

11

I think time spent should be cumulative. If you go over your limit by 30 seconds on one answer, 30 seconds is subtracted from your total allotment. If your opponent doesn’t compensate by going over on his answers, after a while your turns would then drop from 60 seconds to 55 seconds. Eventually, if a candidate has only 60 seconds left (reserved for his final remark), his microphone would be turned off and all further questions would be addressed to the opponent.

12

I think any time a candidate goes off-topic or dodges a question, he or she should be required to take an item of clothing off. Let’s see for ourselves whether or not there’s a problem down there, Don. Or, just answer the danged question.

13

I would be willing to allow an extra 5 seconds to finish the sentence. Then the taser built into the lectern is triggered.

And the candidate is required to have one hand on the lectern at all times.

The taser will also be used when a non-answer is given.

Before the debate, the candidates will be given a list of previous statements that have been deemed false.
Penalty:taser.

:smiley:

14

Dunk tanks. When a candidate tells a verified falsehood, proven by a panel behind the scenes, a random audience member gets three tries to dunk the liar.

15

I’m not completely opposed to a formal pistol duel at 10 paces. I think Hillary would take him.

16

Naked Mud Wrestling. Who wouldn’t want to see naked Hilary pulling off Donald’s hair piece (or whatever that thing is on top of his head)?

17

I’d like the debate to be run like a quiz show. Straight factual questions, each candidate gets a chance to answer the same set of questions, while the other one is in a sound-proofed booth. They’re immediately told whether they’re right or wrong, and points are awarded. No notes, no earpieces, no audience.

The subject matter would cover questions of law, science, geography, civics, history, and anything else the judges can come up with. Decision of the judges on each question is final, no opportunity for argument or re-direction.

You get positive points for a correct answer, negative points for an incorrect one, and zero points if you’re able to just say “I don’t know”.

18

I like the sound proofed booth idea. Let each hear the other but their mikes will be turned off while the other is speaking. If the candidate isn’t answering the question, his mike is turned off. No sucking up to the local audience and reminding them of how their state is threatened by the terrible ideas of the other. No microphone picking up audience reaction, ideally the audience would be gagged and placed in strait jackets for the duration.

19

One predetermined question, no moderator, just a time keeper. Let them make initial argument, rebuttal, and conclusion in a fixed amount of total time that they have to manage. Turn off the mike as soon as the time is up.

20

Just give each candidate a button that controls the taser in their opponent’s lectern. Now that’s entertainment!