Every four years we are subjugated to the relentless parade of political ads on television, radio, and, now social media. Both candidates, regardless of their party, declare that his or her opponent is a liar, a cheat, corrupt, and should not be even considered for office. I suppose that kind of negative campaigning has been going on since the founding of our republic. Nonetheless, it seems to get worse every election cycle.
One part of the election process, especially for President of the United States, that has become a fixture in the last sixty years, are the televised debates. In most Presidential campaigns since 1960 (except 1964, 1968, and 1972) the two parties’ candidates (and sometimes more) have confronted each other live before the American people. The problem, however, is that the debates, in my opinion, are poorly conducted. They usually have some panel of reporters direct questions to the candidates, often with the not so hidden intention of catching them make false or foolish statements. Often the discussions devolve into the candidates and moderators arguing and interrupting each other.
In my opinion, if the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to have a truly fair and clear discussion, they should organize the debates like any formal debate would be. Instead of just throwing questions haphazardly at each candidate, they should have a moderated debate with strictly timed periods for each one to speak without interruption. It should start with each of them giving a thirty to forty minute opening statement wherein they would make their basic case as to their qualifications, their positions on the key issues, and why the people should vote for them. A coin flip would determine who goes first and the other person would be seated until his or her turn.
After the two opening statements, each candidate would then have ten to fifteen minutes to make a rebuttal of their opponents’ arguments. This would naturally include making negative statements against their opponents’ qualifications and positions, again with the opponent sitting down and without interruption.
Next, after the rebuttals, the candidates would engage in two 15 minute cross examination periods wherein each one, in turn, asks the other questions about what they have said or anything else they want to bring up. The debate would conclude with each giving about a ten minute final statement. Note, the moderator asks no questions but only monitors the time periods and calls out any attempts to interrupt.
This process, I believe, would give each candidate equal opportunities to make their cases for their elections and to challenge their opponents. It would prevent the kind of unruly, and sometimes ugly, diatribes that tend to break out when no clear rules are prescribed. I have seen this method work very well in other kinds of debates on politics and religion. I think it would work well for the Presidential elections as well.