The current debate format is a farce and is nothing more than a slug fest that we watch. The moderators have little to no control over the debaters. John Donvan has a petition that proposes change the current format to the Oxford style format where the debates are done in a civil manner and the audience can gain substantive information from the debaters. I posit if this were the case, the outcome of this election cycle would be much different and correspond to the intelligence of the people, not the uncivil nastiness of the candidates.
Please go to this link and sign the petition.
https://www.change.org/p/hillary-clinto … utm_medium
While I like the idea myself, I don't think the public as a whole does. Far more fun and exciting to see the mudslinging that to actually have to think about issues. There is also the problem of believing anything out of the mouths of either one as they will both say whatever they think will gain them votes.
The format should be structured in such away that the candidates are forced to answer the questions put to them to avoid bandstanding and equivocation.
Have the debates held in a closed TV studio with no audience, just moderators. This way there is yelling, clapping or cheering. 3 hours minimum.
Wilderness: That's too bad. That speaks volume as to how low are intellect has gone. The types of questions the moderators would ask do not allow that to happen. Did you even look at the link?
No, I didn't look - there was no link when I posted. Have read it now, though.
As I said, I would appreciate it, but DO see problems. This year, all the advantage would go to Clinton, and Trump would be a fool to even participate. While the group touts itself as "non-partisan" I think that's doubtful.
But let me ask you - should Clinton answer the questions honestly and straightforward, ignoring Trump's rants and sticking to the topic, how would she appear? Would she not "win" every debate in the minds of every thinking voter out there?
And has that not been true for many years - the candidate that actually answered the questions came across looking far better? Yet they didn't, and doesn't that say something pretty major.
You think an Oxford style format would be any less of a farce? Are you honestly suggesting that any two people-- anywhere, could have a substantive debate on: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health, Security, Labor, Economics, or Diplomacy? Are you honestly trying to suggest that there could ever be a single substantive debate on any one of those topics?
Assuming you dropped everything and just went with a single debate on each of the big ones: Economics, Education, Immigration, National Defense, and Foreign Policy, you're still talking about five debates by people who are completely unqualified to debate on those topics. See, that's the part that your video leaves out: when IQ² holds their debates, they have experts in each field on either side. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump are experts in any one of those fields, much less the other ten departments of the Executive Branch.
Presidential Debates are political theater, and they always have been, altering the format isn't going to change that.
Shawn; That's a very sad commentary about our country and the people who are supposed to run our country. Here is how the debate is supposed to work.
1. The traditional format of an Oxford debate begins with a sharply framed motion ("raising taxes on corporations'} or ("the draft should be re-instated") proposed by one side and opposed by the other.
2. The debates follow a formal structure which begins with audience members casting a pre-debate vote on the motion that is either for, against, or undecided.
3. Each panelist delivers a seven-minute opening statement, after which the moderator takes questions from the audience with inter-panel challenges.
4. Finally, each panelist delivers a closing statement, and the audience casts a second vote.
5. A winner is declared either by a majority vote or by which side has swayed more audience members between the two votes.
Here are questions for each one of your categories:
Economics - Our country is in an economic decline,
Education - Free college tuition
Immigration - Close the borders
Defense - Privatize the military
Foreign policy - Make Israel a free state.
Have you not seen what we've had to choose from for the last twenty years? Seriously? Ever since journalism turned into entertainment, the people we would want for this job won't run for this job, so it's bottom of the barrel candidates from here on out.
I'm familiar with the structure, but it doesn't change anything. You're going to get the same canned answers and modified stump speeches you get now. You're wanting a substantive debate on complex issues, which simply isn't possible because those candidates aren't qualified to give substantive answers on those topics.
wilderness: The debates are supposed to done in a civil and orderly manner. If Trump goes into his rants, he is dismissed. Yes, it says something major. That Trump's style is not debating. He is dividing and conquering by branding everyone of his opponents with a defaming name and then ridiculing them. If he can't answer a question, he just changes the subject and usually just talks about how great he is. Apparently, he has a following that buy into his non-sense. But he is a master at branding, dividing and conquering, and back peddling when he caught.
"If he can't answer a question, he just changes the subject and usually just talks about how great he is."
Sounds like every politician I've ever listened to, although I would add that if they CAN answer, but don't want to, that the same boilerplate about how great they and their plans are is the stock answer.
Which has nothing to do with what I said; that we've seen this crap for years and not a single politician has had the sense to give straight answers. For a very good reason - their rhetoric is designed to elicit votes, not actually provide answers to questions.
I would love to see the debates run this way. Thank you for the link to sign the petition.
Wilderness, I would say that you are right that a presidential candidate cannot claim to be an expert in any one of those topics in the same way, say, an academic who has spent years focusing on one subject can claim. However, a candidate should be able to show a reasonable level of knowledge in each subject. This debate format would expose strengths and weaknesses in the candidates in each of the areas covered. That would be a good thing, right?
By the way, your cynicism is showing. Too much cynicism kills good ideas and inhibits progress. Just because something is difficult does not mean it cannot be done. Just because something cannot be done perfectly does not mean it should not be tried.
Umm...that wasn't me, about being an expert. Personally, I think that's why good advisers are necessary; because no candidate is an expert.
Yes, cynicism can hurt. I recognize that, and fight it, but am still an enormous cynic when it comes to political rhetoric. Maybe such a debate would help, but my earlier comment about lies still holds: candidates will tell you whatever you want to hear if they think it will get your vote. What they think is needed, what they actually think they can accomplish or even what they want to do is immaterial; the first step is to get that vote and they will say whatever is necessary.
Cynical, yes. Realistic - also yes.
Yes, promises are sometimes made just to appease a certain demographic and gain votes. However, promises are not knowledge. That is a whole other aspect of a candidate that can and should be revealed via the debate process.
Which is why knowledge is not provided, just promises. Yes, that lack should probably be revealed...but that would result in a loss of votes, so it won't be.
But level of knowledge would be revealed if this new format were adopted, right?
Only if it were watched and much thought put into it. And if the candidates participated, AND were honest.
Neither of which I see happening.
If you really think that a candidate that steals white house silverware and lies to congress will, in a campaign for office, tell you anything but what you want to hear, you're a lost cause. Or if you think a disgusting loudmouth that has brilliantly played the rednecks of the country will, either.
I may be too cynical, but you need a healthy dose of it yourself.
Wilderness: Your cynicism is only exceeded by your years of brainwashing by right wing propaganda. I'm sure Hillary needs to steal silverware from the white house and what you call lying has been cleared by all the authorities. This is just like gun control, why even try, it's not going to work anyway. That's the great America spirit...not
Absolutely she "needs" to steal from the White House. Amoral people often do have "need" somewhere in there.
Lying, I do remember, very clearly, her saying there was no classified information on her private servers. And yet the "authorities" (FBI) found over a 100 documents...after she erased thousands more document without ever letting them be seen. Call it cleared if you wish, or tell it like it is: she did something she should not have and then said she didn't do it. Head in the sand and all.
Yeah, some people learn from history and some don't. Some pretend that taking guns from people will prevent murders, some look at history and realize it isn't so. We get that: but the drive is to placate an ignorant population and calm their fears, not actually do anything useful or even try to. But votes, then, which is ever popular amongst the politicians.
I too am a political cynic when it comes to critiquing liberals , proud of it too. Any one who supports the Hillary Coronation is brainwashed or bought off by favors , bribes or union membership benefits . Why would you blame EVEN a cynic for the calling out of lack of foresight of people brain-dead to Hillary's extreme political corruption and moral deficit !
You are a definite liberal holdout , from seeing her moral and ethical duality and twisted personality , my prediction is that win or lose for Hillary , YOU will be one of those totally disgusted with your decision to support her , AFTER the election .
Please don't be so hard on yourself at that time , some people just cannot see through her corrupted campaign , the same thing happened with Jimmy Jones , David Koresh , Joseph Lenin , Adolf Hitler........etc. I guess it's the cool-aid thing .
I would suggest that the candidates do not want the type of format you are suggesting. It would put them in a position of having to answer questions. They don't want to do that. It puts them in a position of being held accountable for their words.
It is easier to say "He/she did this and he/she thinks that". That is politics today. Few vote for someone. We tend to be put into a position of voting against them.
by bizzymom 5 years ago
Of the four 2012 debates who do you think was the best moderator? Why?Do you think the moderators should be more neutral rather than pro a certain political party or candidate in future debates? It is my belief that the moderators tried to stay somewhat neutral, but at least one was blatantly...
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
Will the current presidential candidates cause a low voter turnout in November?I've spoken to Republicans and Democrats who tell me they're just not going to vote in November, because they don't like anyone running for president. Is this right? I plan to hold my nose and vote, but I will...
by Dean Traylor 19 months ago
Three out of four presidential candidates are anti-vaxxers. How will this affect your vote?The four candidates (Johnson and Stein included) also have differing views on science in general. Still,in this particular area, all but one candidate believes that vaccines cause autism in children....
by mio cid 23 months ago
The man is truly embarrassing,he is incapable of answering a single question on any topic because of the fear of the extreme right which makes him give nonsensical answers and look like a mumbling fool when asked even the simplest of questions.
by FitnezzJim 22 months ago
Should the Commission on Presidential Debates lose its tax-exempt status?Politico.com is reporting (September 2, 2016) that the Libertarian VP nominee claims the Commission on Presidential Debates could lose tax exempt status by excluding Libertarians from the 2016 presidential debates. The...
by Stacie L 6 years ago
By NBC's Chuck Todd. Mark Murray, and Brooke Brower*** None of the above: So what do we make of Herman Cains surprising -- and overwhelming -- victory at Saturdays Florida Straw Poll? Call it a vote for None of the Above by the conservatives who gathered in Orlando. They didnt break for...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|