Problem of Primaries.

In addition to bringing up the issue of our horribly skewed primary system which makes people in some states wait months while others choose the presidential nominees, this post hits a very good point about the televised presidential debates which I hadn't consciously thought about, but now that I do, it seems quite obvious.

Even if I had watched every debate that aired (I have watched some, but not all of them this season), if I didn't have net access, I wouldn't have a goddamn clue about what the candidates' real positions were on various issues. Well, maybe I'd have a vague idea, but nothing more. Why?

Because the format of the debates has been structured in such a way as to be as shallow and without substance as possible, while still managing to create an impression otherwise. For those that haven't been tuning in, the typical "debate" goes something like this...

A panel of moderators, usually consisting of television journalists and associated types, take turns asking questions. The moderator of the moment asks candidate X a question about such-and-such (health care, environment, war in iraq, national security, etc). The candidate then has a predetermined, usually quite small amount of time (60 seconds, more or less) to say whatever they want about the subject. Sometimes, the moderator might then have the option of asking a follow up question, to which the candidate has an even shorter amount of time to respond.

When the time is up -- indicated either by a buzzer or bell that is audible to everyone, or a signal that can only be seen by those who are directly present -- the candidate is supposed to wrap it up, but they will often try to go on as long as they think they can possibly get away with, sometimes even veering into a relatively offtopic tangent even after the buzzer has sounded. When this happens, I the viewer frequently find myself getting fidgety and impatient, regardless of whether the candidate is one I like or not.

Sometimes, based on the whims of the moderators, one candidate might get asked about a particular issue, while none of the others even get a chance to state their views on it. (Another variation which corrects this particular annoyance, which I did see in at least one of the earlier debates, was one where each of the candidates could take turns answering the same question. Slightly better, but still far from ideal.)

The biggest problem I see with the current format, common to every debate I've soon so far, is that 60 seconds, or even a 2 or 3 minutes, is not nearly enough time to explore and discuss, even in a very summary manner, some of the vastly complex issues facing the country. The best anyone could do under such conditions would be to try to come up with some grossly oversimplified catch phrases that don't come near sufficiently explaining what is going on, or what a proposed solution would be. Incidentally, this is exactly ends up happening in these "debates".

Rather than getting into any real discussion about issues and policies, they all go around toting their little memorized lines. Even at times when a moderator might try to raise the discourse, and ask a more nuanced and interesting question, the candidates will usually find a way to twist it back into repeating the some slogans, utter a few platitudes until the buzzer sounds, and then it's on to the next exciting topic!

So the idea proposed in the post is right on the money.

What would I like to see instead?

All primaries conducted on one day, with several televised debates in the weeks prior. All debates on free network television. Transcripts available to print news organizations for release the next day. Not the debates we've been having, with limited, 90-second sound bite answers, but meaningful issue debates.

One "debate" on the economy. Same question to all candidates. Absolutely no deviation from the question allowed by the moderator. Moderator would insist on substantive answers and could press for clarification.

After all candidates have received their 10-minute or so time, the debate would open up for cross questioning by the other candidates. Again, the moderator would ensure that actual questions were being asked, not speeches being given.

At the end, each candidate would be allowed a 2-minute synopsis, free from interruption.

This format would continue for a series of 5 or 6 "issue" specific debates.

What has been missing from presidential debates for a few decades is a demonstration of candidates' knowledge and ability to focus on substance, not scripted sound bites.

Hello, is anybody in tv land listening?