A More Fair Debate Format?

[phillies]

Why can't every network just go down the line asking each candidate equal amount of questions?? I think I know what your answers will be (controlled media bias), however I think a network that adopted this debate style would be able to promote their debate as the "fairest" debate out there which means more ratings for them..

[FreeTraveler]

No, actually they don't care about their debate being the "fairest." Why should they? They don't answer to their audience, and haven't for decades, if indeed they ever did. They have a message to impart for their masters, and if they fail to do so they will be replaced by people who will.

Six corporations control the legacy media in this country. Those same corporations are inexorably intertwined with the military/industrial/welfare/political complex. What do they care if you like this version of the presentation over that version? Their job is to present a continual commercial for the corporate cronyism way of life, and make you like it whether you want to or not.

[CaptainAmerica]

every question should be given to every candidate in the line, from one to the next. 60 seconds to answer and disqualification for talking about another candidates answer.

[Original_Intent]

It is very easy to accomplish.

All candidates start with a stop clock with an equal amount of time.

When a question is asked, all candidates indicate whether they would like to respond. They may speak as long as they wish on any question, but once out of time they may respond to no more questions, even if the other candidates refer to them. They should have a botton or something to stop their clock to indicate they are done speaking.

If multiple candidates wish to respond to a question, the candidate with the highest remaining speaking time responds first, the second most remaining time second, and so forth.

In the case of equal time (such as at the beginning) order will be random. Note that going first is not necessarily an advantage as it gives those that follow the opportunity to criticize you response, and going later gives you time to compose your response.

At the end of the debate, all candidates may make closing statements to use their remaining time. The order could either be random, or based on time remaining. This would be easy to implement, entertaining, and fair.

[pacelli]

Even the networks that advertise that they are fair & balanced' are completely controlled by their financiers. Heck, did you watch the London hearings featuring Murdoch, president of NewsCorp? The guy doesn't even know basic issues about his businesses. So you see, he's just a face. Now that they have trademarked and patented "fair and balanced" you can forget about it.

Ron just needs to advertise a policy-explicative friendly internet sites.

[tbone717]

An even simpler format would be to give each candidate a question with 2 mins to respond. Then give 2 candidates each a one min rebuttal followed by the original candidate getting a one min follow up. As far as which candidates get a rebuttal, you simply go in the order of the way they are positioned and then repeat. In that sense, it is an actual debate since the candidates giving a rebuttal can contrast their answers with the others.

[R3volutionJedi]

Why can't every network just go down the line asking each candidate equal amount of questions?? I think I know what your answers will be (controlled media bias), however I think a network that adopted this debate style would be able to promote their debate as the "fairest" debate out there which means more ratings for them..

I like this idea!!
It's like Gun Control - 1 min. seconds for each candidate.

[ShaneEnochs]

It is very easy to accomplish.

All candidates start with a stop clock with an equal amount of time.

When a question is asked, all candidates indicate whether they would like to respond. They may speak as long as they wish on any question, but once out of time they may respond to no more questions, even if the other candidates refer to them. They should have a botton or something to stop their clock to indicate they are done speaking.

If multiple candidates wish to respond to a question, the candidate with the highest remaining speaking time responds first, the second most remaining time second, and so forth.

In the case of equal time (such as at the beginning) order will be random. Note that going first is not necessarily an advantage as it gives those that follow the opportunity to criticize you response, and going later gives you time to compose your response.

At the end of the debate, all candidates may make closing statements to use their remaining time. The order could either be random, or based on time remaining. This would be easy to implement, entertaining, and fair.

This wouldn't necessarily be good for us. Ron Paul, when given the opportunity, will speak at length to educate the public.

[Original_Intent]

This wouldn't necessarily be good for us. Ron Paul, when given the opportunity, will speak at length to educate the public.

I think just the opposite: Ron Paul answers the question directly. So Cain could use his time tap dancing around the issues and saying nothing, Ron could use his time, and I think would do so VERY effectively. And it might actually get the other candidates to shut their pie holes rather than blathering on with their non-answers.

[Inny Binny]

Well, the problem is that the format isn't actually a debate at all, but more a joint press conference. If they really want something that lives up to its name, then you have to have a colourful exchange of ideas, not a circle-jerk around Obama's dead body. A more suitable structure would be something like this...

3 hours
5 candidates left - eg Paul, Romney, Cain, Gingrich, Perry
10 topics - eg housing, iran, healthcare, education, europe debt, china, immigration, afghanistan, unions, civil rights

Candidates would be paired off, assigned a topic at random and ask a question to start things off. Then there'll essentially be an unrestricted one-on-one debate for 18 minutes. There'll be 10 of these mini-debates and each candidate will get 4 topics.

[HarryBrowneLives]

I think the easiest way to do it is have individual, visible clocks for the candidates with equal amounts of time minus commercials. When your time is up, your mic is cut off.

[Exponent]

For once I think politics could actually learn something from sports:

In nearly every sport, it is fundamentally impossible to play more than two teams against each other in a single game. And even if the rules actually somehow allow for it, doing so complicates the process dramatically, usually causing very few wins to truly feel like wins (a team's loss can be blamed on the other losing teams somehow, for example).

So what do they do? Two teams at a time, with some sort of regular season and/or tournament system to give everyone a fair(ish) chance. No, you might not see every single matchup possible, but each team will have to play a variety of other teams with various strengths and weaknesses. Especially in the regular season (in contrast with tournaments, where a team might get an unlucky matchup the very first round).

Applied to debates? One-on-one debates between candidates, randomly chosen and spaced out over time. (edit: I see Inny Binny already made a similar suggestion as I was typing. Yay for convergent ideas!) Tournament stuff has to be ignored, of course, because that's what actual voting is for. That means more time per candidate without actually increasing the number of debates a candidate has to attend (it's been getting pretty insane this cycle). Perhaps even some of the lesser-known candidates can get into debates without actually stressing the system. (10+ candidates in a single debate is disfunctional; even 8 is bad enough.)

But of course, I'm sure that doesn't fit into the media's agendas sufficiently (as others have already noted), so it's not actually gonna happen. For one, I doubt numerous one-on-one debates are going to draw a large audience, so network/cable TV stations would rather just play their regular shows instead of lots of debates. Secondly, they obvious like to have a large manipulating presence in the election process, and a fair system reduces their ability to manipulate, so I don't expect them to shoot themselves in the foot, as much as I'd love to see it.

[hb6102]

Fair debates with each candidate answering every question died in 1992. Watch the 1992 Perot-Bush-Clinton debates on cspan.org

Bush, Perot, and Clinton each answered every question, and Perot nailed the two establishment candidates. Too bad he started campaigning so late.

[cgainey]

They should also add an introduction at the start. Each canadate get 3 minutes to free talk about their position on the nights topics.

[Flirple]

Ron should challenge all the other candidates to Celebrity Jeopardy.

[ShaneEnochs]

For once I think politics could actually learn something from sports:

In nearly every sport, it is fundamentally impossible to play more than two teams against each other in a single game. And even if the rules actually somehow allow for it, doing so complicates the process dramatically, usually causing very few wins to truly feel like wins (a team's loss can be blamed on the other losing teams somehow, for example).

So what do they do? Two teams at a time, with some sort of regular season and/or tournament system to give everyone a fair(ish) chance. No, you might not see every single matchup possible, but each team will have to play a variety of other teams with various strengths and weaknesses. Especially in the regular season (in contrast with tournaments, where a team might get an unlucky matchup the very first round).

Applied to debates? One-on-one debates between candidates, randomly chosen and spaced out over time. (edit: I see Inny Binny already made a similar suggestion as I was typing. Yay for convergent ideas!) Tournament stuff has to be ignored, of course, because that's what actual voting is for. That means more time per candidate without actually increasing the number of debates a candidate has to attend (it's been getting pretty insane this cycle). Perhaps even some of the lesser-known candidates can get into debates without actually stressing the system. (10+ candidates in a single debate is disfunctional; even 8 is bad enough.)

But of course, I'm sure that doesn't fit into the media's agendas sufficiently (as others have already noted), so it's not actually gonna happen. For one, I doubt numerous one-on-one debates are going to draw a large audience, so network/cable TV stations would rather just play their regular shows instead of lots of debates. Secondly, they obvious like to have a large manipulating presence in the election process, and a fair system reduces their ability to manipulate, so I don't expect them to shoot themselves in the foot, as much as I'd love to see it.

I like the idea, but we're very late in the game for that. Plus, it's more logical to have all of them up there at one time so you don't have to wait six debates down the line to see the difference between two candidates.