Replies

The "debates" have been turned into the political equivalent of Survivor.

And, frankly this is why Trump does fairly well. He knows how THAT game is played!

BUT, so does the rest of the entertainment educated voters. All the voting reality TV shows has solidified this arena format. Consider that idea for a moment. All the reality shows that allow viewers to vote for their favorite dancer, singer, etc. Also has an effect on the voter come election time. They are now experienced in voting for their 'favorite,' even if they are not the best choice. The judges equate to the GOP-e or Dem-e in making sure only the best get to the top.

The problem with that analogy is the elites are not picking the best either. So we're ending up with McCains or Romneys or worse the other party is playing to the rock star mentality of the ill-informed voter with the likes of 0bama.

The problem isn't just the media, it is the uneducated public who has fallen victim to these elite schemes. The educated public outcry, coupled with the real candidates who really care about our country is finally matriculating up to be heard.

Many here may disagree, but I'd take a debate hosted by Glenn Beck TV, The Blaze or whatever it is. Maybe not Glenn Beck as a moderator, more the host, but letting his network pick or invite moderators.

A move such as this would really put the MSM on notice and Beck could run one of his 'free' for the night campaigns over the internet. Why free? Because if Beck cares as much as he claims a debate hosted by him would/should produce valuable insights into the Republican party. Not just the conservative base.

It would also send the message to the MSM, We the People, aren't buying your propaganda anymore.

I'd skip the moderators altogether. I've posted this several times, so forgive me if you've seen it:

The debates are a farce, anyway. It's nothing but a series of rehearsed statements.

My proposal:

Set a time limit on the total speaking time for candidates. Let's say it is 120 minutes.
Divide it by the number of candidates. If there are 10, each gets 12 minutes. Six candidates get 20 minutes each.
Each candidate gets a clock. It is displayed on both sides of the podium. When it is their turn to speak, their clock starts. When they hit the button, their mike is shut off and their clock stops.
Interruptions out of turn impose a 1 minute penalty.
Each candidate is allowed an opening statement, during which their clock counts down.
Questions are pre-recorded by a voice actor. I'll explain the questions at the bottom.
A random question is played, and each candidate gets to answer, in random order. Or, they can pass.
If a candidate's clock hits zero, their microphone is shut off, and they have no more opportunities to speak until their closing statement.
Additional questions are asked, and the candidates with time remaining get to answer.
Repeat until all clocks are at zero.
Finally, every candidate gets 1 minute to make a closing statement.

Note: there's no moderator. The questions are recorded in advance, and all it takes is a technician to press the appropriate button.

The questions are submitted by the candidate. They are free to submit any policy questions they want to be asked (and presumably want to answer). However, you can't ask another candidate a direct question.

The questions are then chosen at random. To prevent abuse, the list of questions and their origin (which candidate submitted it) will be published after the debate. An accounting firm will be hired to select the questions at random from something like a bingo drum, and a technician simply plays the question identified by that number.

kidd subsequently suggested that each candidate should submit a single question for each of a pre-announced set of topics, and then during the debate one candidate's question would be chosen at random for each topic. I actually like that idea better than mine.