Would you purchase pay-per-view (PPV) to watch the general election debates?

In My Humble Opinion
1

If this should be moved to the Elections forum, please feel free.

Considering some of the Republican debates had some of the highest ratings of presidential debates in a long time, maybe the Federal Election Commission should take the opportunity to collect some coin off of the upcoming general election debates between the two party candidates. It is my belief that while they may not be very informative, they will be extremely entertaining.

As such, putting these things on PPV may be profitable. We shouldn’t necessarily let the networks and news channels be the economic beneficiaries of large viewer turnout. Let the tax payers get something back from having these two presumptive nominees go at it.

So would you purchase presidential debate PPV? If so what would you pay?

I would pay up to $25 per debate to watch.

2

I didn’t watch any of the freebies so I certainly wouldn’t pay to watch one. Especially because they’re not what I consider to be debates - instead they’re treated as opportunities to toss out soundbites and tag lines.

Now, if you can promise me the candidates would answer the questions and not just twist them into an opening to orate, and that the questions would be substantive and not just BS, I might consider watching, but I’m not sure I’d pay for the privilege.

3

I wouldn’t pay for it. In fact, I have never used pay per view for anything in my entire life… who has that kind of money?

You focus on the economic benefit of selling the debate, but the purpose of a debate is to provide information to the public. Putting that information behind a paywall is the exact opposite of the intended function. I don’t have a problem with cable networks making advertising revenue from it, but it needs to be freely available.

You could satisfy my complaints by making the debate freely available for download or re-broadcast the day after the debate.

4

I wouldn’t pay a dime to see them, although I do watch them for free. It’s not the money, but the concept that would turn me off.

5

This year, yes. It will be a total shitshow.

6

Not only would I not pay, I would reject to being paid a non-trivial amount of money to watch them.

7

Wait a minute. You mean now it costs $25 to be an informed voter? Doesn’t that smack of a poll tax?

Here’s an idea. I’ll watch the debates for $25, and then, for five buck apiece, I’ll tell voters who to vote for. Everybody saves $20.

8

There’s no legal requirement for the candidates to even have debates, or for voters to become informed prior to an election. The PPV would be entertainment to offset the costs of the elections.

You think the candidates should do away with those $1,000 a plate dinners and allow anyone to come in and shake their hands and get their pictures taken with them. Not all events are equal.

9

I couldn’t bring myself to watch more than a couple of primary debates this year. If I were willing to pay 25 bucks for that kind of torture, I’d also have to pay $200 to a therapist to figure out how I can stop myself.

10

There are plenty of ways to become an informed voter that are more effective and cheaper than buying a television set. In fact, I’d guess that owning a television is probably negatively correlated with being politically informed.

11

No, the purpose of the debates is to give the candidates free air time to spout sound bites. No actual information is harmed during the making of these shows. And no, I would not pay to see them.

12

With the number of cord cutters, isn’t having the debate behind a paywall, & one with more of an obstacle than PPV as you need to be home between noon & 5pm for install of cable just to get CNN?

As for the OP’S question; I didn’t watch the free ones, I’m damn sure not going to pay to not watch. 8 find them akin to going to a product’s marketing material & calling that "
research".

13

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a worse way to spend my money.

14

As a cinephile who doesn’t pay for my movies you’re asking an awful lot…

15

No. Completely laughable suggestion. You want me to pay money to watch a long form advertisement highlighting people I despise?

I would not pay a single dime for information about any of the candidates, ever. If they can’t afford to communicate their message to potential voters, I won’t hear it, period. It’s their campaign, not mine, why would I want to fund a stranger’s political misadventure?

16

The 2008 and 2012 presidential debates were the only tv we’ve watched together. Yes, we’d pay if it were PPV.

17

No.

18

Can I buy a gun and a bullet to blow my own head off for 25 bucks? That sounds more appealing than the OP.

19

I’d pay money to keep the debates from preempting a TV show I wanted to watch. I’d also pay to stop networks from breaking into the show I am watching with “breaking news” about any aspect of the election.

20

I was appalled to find out that primary debates were only on one cable channel. I suppose that’s permissible because a primary election is just a party election. For a general election debate though, being only on cable TV would be unacceptable, let alone pay-per-view.