Four Changes Will Fix The Debates
Is it too much to ask?
As we brace ourselves for another political debate, we can naturally expect debaters talking over each other, interrupting, going over their time limits, grandstanding, etc. etc. That’s what they do, every time. Couldn’t we avoid all of the drama and simply provide a viewer experience that is both informative and engaging? Couldn’t that be done before we have to endure the next GOP debate, as well as the eventual debate(s) between the two parties’ presidential candidates?
It’s not really that hard. There are few simple, implementable strategies that would do the trick, and make Presidential (and other) debates a lot easier to take seriously. In just a few moves, we could eliminate candidates talking over each other, interrupting, presenting falsities, misrepresenting information, and grandstanding to the crowd instead of answering the debate questions.
The following ideas are pretty simple, and easily implementable. After all, this is not a moonshot. These are reasonable guidelines and guardrails to ensure public debates that deliver real value to voters. The candidates are seeking the highest office(s) in the land. The least they can do is abide by reasonable debate and discussion rules:
1. Microphones have 10-second auto-off. Ten seconds after the allotted time for a candidate to answer a question, the volume on his or her mic goes immediately to zero, automatically. For instance, if two minutes are allotted for an answer, the mic will go mute at two minutes and 10 seconds. Period. With a count-down clock in front of them, debaters will see at any moment what remains of their allotted speaking time. They’ll need to make their points within that time. If they can't do it, so sorry.
2. Enforce an "Interruption Deduction." For every instance in which a candidate interrupts his or her opponent(s), their next allotted speaking time will be cut by one-third. Interruptions will be expensive, so they'd better be important.
3. Incorporate a short, invisible delay into the broadcast, to enable “realtime-like” fact-checking. For instance, if the debate is scheduled to begin at 9pm, “live" studio recording of it actually begins at 8:50pm. The program is then released and begins playing for the public at the normally scheduled 9pm start time. In that 10 minute window between when the debate begins live recording in the studio and when it appears for viewers, humans (with optional AI assistance) fact-check to determine how truthful or factually accurate a debater’s assertions are.
This is invisible fact-checking because the results of the fact-checking appear onscreen as the speaker is making the assertion that has just been fact-checked (during the 10 minute delay). To the viewer, the fact check appears to be instantaneous, in realtime. A requirement of every candidate participating in the debate is advance approval of the invisible fact-checking process taking place during the debate.
4. Tame the audience. The debate takes place in a studio, and as a condition of admission, any audience member must be sworn to silence during the debate (or be isolated from the stage before the debate begins). Also fully-prohibited is any live streaming or broadcasting of the debate, of any kind, from any audience member, to ensure integrity of the delayed broadcast.
There’s probably a market for the spectacle side of what debates usually offer. Pundits, media and now “content creators” thrive on the theatrical, the performative version of politics. Which candidate is going to get in the most points? the most digs? the most clever retorts? Who’s going to look the most macho? or the most serious? or the most ridiculous or unqualified? Or maybe someone will say something slanderous? Perhaps a fight will break out.
In the alternative, implementing these 4 simple changes, will provide a “clean” debate, without the distraction of an interactive audience, or of the usual on-stage shenanigans designed for later promotion on social media. This revised format will provide actual insight into how our candidates measure up in terms of disposition, ability to articulate positions, authenticity, and other qualities essential to being the best public servants the country can aspire to having. This is exactly how we need to see them debate. On their feet, without distractions, and on a level playing field that respects the debaters as well as the audience.
In this new and improved debate environment, the role of moderator will take on new significance. Debate moderators will no longer need to act like ringmasters or game show hosts in order to conduct a decent debate or to explore issues in an orderly, dare say, intelligent manner. Moderators can be chosen for their personal knowledge or expertise in the areas that are to be addressed in the debate, as well as their ability to engage in meaningful back and forth with the debaters.
Will viewers prefer the new, no-nonsense debate format? Or will viewership drop because debates are no fun without the on-stage drama? The network that hosts the debate definitely cares about this. Revenues are at stake. But surely, this must be one programming event intended first and foremost to help promote a healthy democracy, at least for a couple of hours. And who knows? Maybe a well-run exposition and debate of ideas between wanna-be leaders will actually increase viewership. Especially because voters understand the importance of the moment — the national and global challenges that must be met, and the importance of not squandering valuable time on cheap theatrics and informational slight-of-hand. Let’s have those debates, and let’s do it right, for a change.
(To participate in extended discussion, this article also appears on my Daily Kos page)
If you are enjoying these original articles and curated news, please share them with others; and if you’re not yet a free subscriber, here’s your chance:
Given how much "fact-checking" has been false recently, I don't think that part is a good idea. Whether something is true or false can be discussed after the debate. Muting the mics is a great idea.