Republican presidential hopefuls who have declared their candidacies already number 15 with more expected. Debate hosts are trying to develop plans to make their productions more valuable than mere live sound bites.
Fox News, the first host, has announced it will bring the top 10 poll leaders to a debate, with another session at another time for those finishing over No. 10.
Has any prospective sponsor come up with a more traditional debate format?
Not all high school graduates remember their alma maters probably had debate teams much less remember attending a debate. Rules were something like this: There were two teams, sometimes only two debaters. One side took took the positive side of question, and the other the negative. The teams were prepared for both. There also would be a team of judges.
Candidates for a party’s nomination don’t want to follow such rules, but something similar could be arranged that could very well serve voters well. Perhaps better than did debates of the past.
The Kennedy-Nixon clash was not preceded by debates involving numerous primary hopefuls.
Something along these lines might illuminate the political, historical and practical bona fides of those suggesting themselves for the highest office in the land, and one that has been the most influential in the world. Names could be pulled from a hat, two at a time. Those two candidates would then get network TV time to debate each other. Debate topics would be the obvious ones: Recommendations for defense, foreign affairs, immigration, the economy, taxation.
Political debates don’t have to follow the Cambridge Union, the old English model for traditional debates. No need to put those topics in the form of questions. Each debater would proceed with, “ I would handle . . .” instead of the old debate formula of “Resolved, the country’s tax code, etc.”
A moderator would offer obvious national and international problems and keep time so that a number of pertinent issues could be covered in a reasonable total time. But the debaters would be left to fend for themselves. The moderator would not direct questions to the debaters, merely announce the topics.
Listening citizens would judge for themselves. News media and pundits would do their usual analysis, as would be expected.
Debates on the same topics would follow from other pairs selected at random until all the candidates were covered. There should be reluctance to exclude candidates with really miniscule polling numbers.
Might not such a series of debates have a better chance of revealing to the electorate the actual beliefs of hopeful nominees and their strengths and weaknesses? Widely known news anchors and correspondents would no longer be in position to color the proceedings.
Gone would be such questions as what would you do if your daughter sought an abortion, or your uncle wished to marry his male hairdresser . . . the typical “gotcha” queries.
Voters need to learn for themselves what the candidates are all about. Their handlers try to paint images. Let the candidates reveal themselves under the pressure of actual back and forth with an opponent needing to impress citizens inclined to vote.
Such a system might increase the turnout. That would be good for the country.
Meanwhile, the Commission on President Debates probably would continue to run the clashes between the two nominees. Created in 1987 by the two major parties, the commission has in the past limited entrance to those candidates polling at least 15 percent, thus practically barring third party candidates. Some movement has begun to change that gatekeeping strategy.
Real debates before state primaries might whittle the field earlier and thus serve the voting citizenry.
