to find a nominee for the office of President of the United States? Can't we design something better than these so-called debates in which some, not all, candidates are afforded 30 seconds to state their position in Iraq, nuclear weapons, the Presidency and Executive Privilege, etc.?
I have no idea. No, I have an idea, but it's unrealistic. I would like to have at least 30 minutes, without commercials, for a panel consisting of three widely skilled journalists, both conservative and liberal, questioning one candidate. There should be several of these sessions, all within eight to ten days, individually with each candidate. Or, perhaps to make the system more equal the sessions would be taped. All could possibly be put up on cable and viewers could choose who, and when, to watch. That would require that all candidates tape be available simultaneously, and also that the sessions not be leaked ahead of showing, allowing other candidates the opportunity to critique ahead of time. After showing, all is fair game
The questions could, perhaps, be divided, one half provided the candidate ahead of the session, and the others completely without foreknowledge. The candidate should have four minutes to respond, and then his microphone turned off. There could be one follow-up by another member of the panel, with another two minutes to respond.
I figure this would give the candidate sufficient time to prepare for some questions and have his response times honed. The expository questions would give the audience a hint of how well the candidate knows his own positions and is not simply well rehearsed. I think over the half hour about four, perhaps five if the time limits were strictly enforced, major questions could be explored.
Three minutes isn't long. But it's better than the 30 seconds now. During the interview, the candidate would be given time to explain where people can find complete versions of his policies and intentions. Three minutes can be a long time, especially if the candidate is trying to bluff his answer. I also think the moderator should be given the ability to cut the candidates microphone off if he or she goes afield, reiterating buzz words currently used. That would require a tough-skinned moderator, but that can be worked out. The moderator should also be able to control the interviewers too, not allowing harassing questions meant specifically to embarrass the candidate.
I suppose it's clear that I don't like the current system. I think it's unfair to the minor candidates, and to the public. It gives a sense of an impartation of knowledge and positions without the ability to bring forth any nuances. I also know my idea is unrealistic and improbable. If you have a better format, put a bit of it in comments with a link to where a complete version can be found. Or email it to me, and we can discuss it.
Comments