How can we get more “proper” Presidential Debates?

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Let’s keep current politics out of this.

With a PoD of 1900, how can we have Presidential debates where each of them is given something to the effect of a 15 minute introduction, 15 minute rebuttal, several ten minute rebuttals each, and then some questions from the audience?

I have rewatched some presidential debates going back to Nixon-Kennedy recently. Pretty much all of them are built for sound bites, albeit they were more policy focused in the earlier debates I watched, because of the lack of speaking time.

I understand why primaries that have more than two (and sometimes 10+) people might go for short responses, but how can we get significantly longer speaking times during debates between the two main parties candidates?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Just allow cross discussion, and have a culture of decorum.

 

[Rickshaw]

Make sure all the debators know and understand the rules, before the debate occurs. Penalise and silence them if they fail to obey them. It is their loss, no one else's. It would stop frequent interruptions, argument ad hominem and they would be required to actually put forward their polices. You would need a strong moderator. Someone who isn't afraid of enforcing the rules and is quite willing to turn off their microphones if they refuse to obey the rules which had been laid out before the debate occurred.

 

[Expat]

Enhance the mythology around the Lincoln-Douglas debates and insert it into the political culture before the rise of radio (to negate the form bending itself to the medium). It actually seems like a very Progressive Era kind of activity. 1890s would be perfect, but 1900 is not too late.

I bet if you could get WJB as the vice presidential nominee, he’d totally do this with fellow veep nom, TR. Sets up the precedent and if it’s a really good debate, a cultural touchstone (at least among the elite), then all the better.

If events then proceed basically as OTL and Teddy is president in 1904, have WJB be his opponent and the two of them set the tradition of presidential Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Probably have a few set organizations sponsor a handful each election year at first- DAR, Grand Army of the Republic, maybe the Red Cross or another benevolent society. Then over the decades formalize it with a debate commission like we have now.

It’ll have a traditional, incontrovertible form before the mass media can mold it to fit their desires.

 

[rjrrzube]

I don't know if the public has the focus needed to sit through hours of debate in the old Lincoln-Douglas style.

 

[fyrdhammer]

Something like C-Span much earlier. The debates are what they are because of the incentive structure that broadcast TV operates under.

 

[Expat]

I don't know if the public has the focus needed to sit through hours of debate in the old Lincoln-Douglas style.

We already have an example of the Lincoln-Douglas format evolving with the times; it's called a high school debate tournament. It's definitely no more taxing than the TV-generated format from 1960 and the evolution that has taken.

From wiki: "Each debater gets thirteen minutes of total speaking time, and three minutes of question time. The rounds take approximately 45 minutes in total. "

Since the topics are known ahead of time, I think you need less downtime, bringing it up to maybe 36 or 38 minutes out of 45. In the early days, downtime isn't a problem, as attention spans are longer. In later days, you use it for station breaks.

Basically instead of 5-10 hyper-confusing minutes on 8-10 issues, we'd get two big issues discussed in a 90-minute debate. And honestly those OTL 8-10 issues are likely to get repeated in subsequent debates anyway. So if we're having 3-5 L/D debates dealing with completely different issues each time, we're actually dealing with a similar number of issues as the current format. It's just you get to hear them talk about national security in a coherent 45-minute chunk rather than spread out at random over the course of 3-5 quickfire OTL style debates.

Another thought: maybe a culture of surrogate debates springs up as interested parties try to host their own debates that the candidates just don't have time for. So the Society for the Preservation of American Quilting hosts a debate, each candidate sends their quilting maven instead of having the candidate deal with it. (I didn't want to make anyone feel bad by picking on a real issue that probably isn't important enough.)

 

[Rickshaw]

The UK is not the US and the US is not the UK but the UK and most Commonwealth countries cope quite well with longer debate formats. Perhaps the difference is the superior Parliamentary styles of the UK and most Commonwealth countries compared to the Congressional style of the US?

 

[kholieken]

Eliminate television. Let people who want debate watch in person, TV necessitates emphasis on images and quick exchanges, not thoughtful dialogue.

 

[Rickshaw]

Eliminate television. Let people who want debate watch in person, TV necessitates emphasis on images and quick exchanges, not thoughtful dialogue.

True. Those that listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debate on radio gave it to Nixon. Those who watched it on TV gave it to Kennedy. That was apparently because of Nixon's five o'clock shadow that his make up didn't hide that well. It made him look like a used car salesman.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Let’s keep current politics out of this.

With a PoD of 1900, how can we have Presidential debates where each of them is given something to the effect of a 15 minute introduction, 15 minute rebuttal, several ten minute rebuttals each, and then some questions from the audience?

I have rewatched some presidential debates going back to Nixon-Kennedy recently. Pretty much all of them are built for sound bites, albeit they were more policy focused in the earlier debates I watched, because of the lack of speaking time.

I understand why primaries that have more than two (and sometimes 10+) people might go for short responses, but how can we get significantly longer speaking times during debates between the two main parties candidates?

With only having read the OP, and none of the replies before mine, I have to say my piece. I recently was disgusted by a recent "Presidential debate" and was horrified and disgusted by what I was seeing. So with that being said:

Get the whole Presidential Campaign, not just the debates, to be restricted to public forums, conducted like something on say a weekly basis, and record everything said during each week, and then have those statements fact checked within a week or so, and then, during the recap, expose the previous statements to the light of "The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth", so that each successive weekly campaign/debate can become a vehicle for the American people to be brought up to speed and be kept fully informed on everything going on. This would require laws to be made and implemented, such that these recordings are made public domain, and freely available for recording/downloading by anyone, so folks can go back and see for themselves what a politician had to say in an earlier debate.

Eliminate campaign ads, eliminate campaign finance, and just have the whole of all the political stuff confined to an honest, and impartial, public forum, where everyone can see for themselves what is going on, and anyone can post their own take on issues and things not mentioned. Catch a politician in a lie? make a video that shows what they said, including footage from the debate where they told the lie! Someone mentions something using one point of view and set of facts and figures, and the rebuttal quotes different facts and figures, then the job of the press is to publish both sets of facts and figures and how they were arrived at.

In fact, do this with all elections, and keep a link active and updated so folks can look into any politician's past campaigns as well as their history of service, detailing what they promised, what they actually did, and any and all aspects of their tenure as a public servant.

I'll now go back and read all the previous replies posted before mine.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Make sure all the debators know and understand the rules, before the debate occurs. Penalise and silence them if they fail to obey them. It is their loss, no one else's. It would stop frequent interruptions, argument ad hominem and they would be required to actually put forward their polices. You would need a strong moderator. Someone who isn't afraid of enforcing the rules and is quite willing to turn off their microphones if they refuse to obey the rules which had been laid out before the debate occurred.

Make it like most debates.
Question, side A light & mic on 3 mins. Off
Same question, side B, on off.

Questions A-Z. No time for bullshitting off topic

Every 3 questions, other side goes first.

End 5 mins each summation

Can’t break rules, can’t ignore rules. KISS

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Having read all the other posts now...

Many good things, but I would like to clarify my ATL version of US elections. If the OP's intention was to focus entirely upon televised debates only, I'll just delete my responses, otherwise...

All political 'campaigns' in the USA get restricted to public debates, that are strictly regulated with regards to truth in advertising/politics, and violations result in immediate shutdowns of offending entities for the duration of the campaign, so no deliberate dis-information is allowed to be publicly disseminated at all.

1) No ads of any kind. Period. So no 'so-and-so endorses this-or-that-candidate'. Everything is forced into the debates, and everything is subject to cross examination and fact checking, off line, so when the debates start up again, anyone that wants to can have, at their leisure and conscience, looked up the facts, and moving forward, issues raised will be developed upon so that they are fully understood, not just mentioned in passing, and score being kept based upon who provides the better show...

2) The Internet is a far better medium than broadcast TV, so while the "Live Debate" does still occur, the recorded and downloadable data file is made public domain for all future use, and can be used in individual commentary, for whatever aspect they personally wish to mention, whether catching someone out, asking for further information/clarifications, or what have you. The internet is a wonderful potential for exacting honesty in public statements, if honesty and truth can be required and enforced.

3) All public office holders and candidates have their past promises and deeds made freely available for public consumption and fact checking, so that, no matter what they say they are going to do, what they actually do in fact is known and publicly posted in the preamble to the debates.

4) All debates for the whole campaign season are regularly scheduled as a once a week event, and only political ads allowed are reminders to watch the "Public Debates". This would make keeping up with politics and political issues far less difficult, and everything would be in the database.

A well informed public, knowledgeable and equipped with all the facts, and spared all the hype and dis-information out there, is the keystone for a Democracy to function, so building up a systematic way of getting the issues out in the open, and also getting all the facts straight, is imperative to have a working Democratic process.

 

[Brahman]

Have it in a form of podcast, bonus points if Joe Rogan is the moderator

 

[Expat]

The UK is not the US and the US is not the UK but the UK and most Commonwealth countries cope quite well with longer debate formats. Perhaps the difference is the superior Parliamentary styles of the UK and most Commonwealth countries compared to the Congressional style of the US?

The UK debates aren’t even necessarily longer, or at least they weren’t the last time I saw them in 2010. Are they still 90 minutes? I recall them being fairly conventional from my American perspective as well, though perhaps a little stilted. I think in this case, the UK tried to follow the US’s lead. So it’s not very illuminating.

There are other ways classical debate styles do permeate in the UK (andI assume other parliamentary systems). Outside the scope of the thread, it would be amazing to put US politicians to the task of PM’s Questions.

Beyond that, aren’t Cambridge Union debates televised in the UK? That’s a positive cultural force promoting what we’re talking about, even if the audience is small.

The UK certainly (can’t speak to other countries) retained a general elitist political culture much longer than the US did, which allowed ideas of taught rhetoric to become a part of that culture. In that, certainly, it is superior, if your goal is more coherent debate.

(I’m personally fine with calling the system in general superior to the weird US model, but it doesn’t seem germane. Both systems also have idiotic failings when compared to some of the more rationalized systems out there, more stripped of harmful traditions.)

 

[Gannt the chartist]

You cant compare a parliamentary system with the US presidential. All parliamentary party leaders have years to establish themselves in actual debate and for the UK PMQ gives a weekly short debate about germane subjects with rules between the leaders and any other MP who wants to ask a question. The US presidential debates are a very brief encounter about nothing of substance but its just about the only unscripted chance the people have to see the candidates and the timeframe is so short most of them can make this a scripted performance anyway.

The other issue is a British and I assume other parliamentary election is a judgement not just on the leader but on the whole of the cabinet who are also accountable at departmental questions and will have track record and in the case of a government or former government minister a record of achievement or otherwise as head of a Department of State.

This is probably more important than people realise. The executive has to account for itself daily to Parliament and Parliament has to show it is working not grandstanding because the legislation runs from the Executive through Parliament and the Executive by definition can normally pass its legislation.

 

[Rickshaw]

In theory I'd agree with you. In practice it is a little more convoluted than that. Downunder Party Discipline is tight. So tight that they laugh at the UK and US versions of the concept, believing them to be basically non-existent. Without such control, it would be possible for an MP to "cross the floor". That occurs more often than not in the Congress and quite often in the Commons. Downunder it as rare as hen's teeth. An MP can only attempt it if they have good control of the sub-branch that has selected him/her to be their party's representative. That is quite rare. Because of that control, the voting in the Parliament can and is directed in particular ways. In the UK Commons, it means a great deal of negotiation has to occur within the Party before an act is passed on the floor.

 

[Kushial]

Regardless of any format changes, the issue that I see is the listeners side of things. You need an audience of voters that is more interested in the best ideas for the best candidate rather than my party regardless of who it is. That sort of thing leads to sound bites to keep that loyal base fired up and if they're punished in the debate for doing it, like muting or loss of response time, that's simply them punishing your guy for being right. So while I like the ideas on the format change, you need a way to make the voters listening or watching to appreciate it as well rather than rely on soundbites.

 

[fasquardon]

The UK debates aren’t even necessarily longer, or at least they weren’t the last time I saw them in 2010. Are they still 90 minutes? I recall them being fairly conventional from my American perspective as well, though perhaps a little stilted. I think in this case, the UK tried to follow the US’s lead. So it’s not very illuminating.

Indeed, the 2010 debates were exceptional for being an effort to do something like the US Presidential debates. Its "normalcy" was actually very unusual for UK politics since it was new and the format didn't really catch on.

fasquardon