An Idea for Better Debates

Well, this is one idea...

The first Presidential Debate of 2020 was everything it was billed to be if you thought it would be the worst possible debate, ever.  Interruptions, rudeness, constant lying – there was no room for an honest debate of policies or future plans with all of that crap flying around.  Immediately this morning there were both calls for reform and promises to “do better,” but if we really want to provide a forum to allow Americans to see their candidates and their platforms and judge who is truly best to lead us, I would like to see some very big changes that frankly, I’ve not seen suggested elsewhere.

Let me first mention one other issue that came up before the debate; the issue that one or both of the candidates would “get the questions ahead of time.”  They were given the subject matter before hand, but not the actual questions the moderator would ask.

Why the hell not?

Some of the classes I taught were set up so that whatever exams I gave were “open book, open note.”  I was not interested in grading what students had memorized; I wanted to know what they knew, if they knew where to find it, and most importantly, how to use that information in making decisions.  Life is open book – you don’t “memorize” a procedures manual, or a recipe booklet.  You feel free to look up information so you get it right.  That’s how it works in the working world, and that’s how I set up my exams.  Find the information, and then tell me what you’d do and how you’d do it with the information you learned.

As that relates to the debates, each candidate would know what questions were on the menu, and would be given an opportunity to prepare a presentation based on that question.  Each presentation would be no more than 5 minutes long.  What about charts, graphs, and PowerPoint presentations?  Sure, why not?  Hey, it’s kinda like those presentations at work, or even on that “Apprentice” TV show.  It just might appeal to candidates with business backgrounds.

After each candidate had their five minutes, there would be a two minute rebuttal from a team the candidate puts together (I’m thinking a group of three).  They would dissect the opponent’s presentation, calling out falsehoods and misleading data.  This would act as the fact-checking function in the debate.  After each rebuttal, there would be a one-minute re-rebuttal of the rebuttal, stating where the rebuttal team got it wrong and restating their candidate’s salient points.

One more thing.  The debates would be on a one-minute delay.  The moderator and the control booth would both have a mute button for the microphones for the candidates and his/her (I’m always optimistic) support team.  The mic would be muted anytime the subject matter was NOT of the specific question (y’know, that ol’ not-answering-the-question but stating-your-talking-points-regardless tactic).  The candidate wouldn’t realize his/her mic was muted until it actually happened; viewers would suddenly hear no sound and merely see the candidate’s lips move. 

Yeah, you could use the same tactic for lying, but then millions of Americans might believe their TV sets were busted.