Fixing the Debate Process in America (Even Newt is critical of the format)

Newt Gingrich is finally moving up in the polls for the GOP nomination. It's interesting to note that, during a National Press Club appearance, the former House speaker spoke critically about the process that ultimately chooses a candidate:

"We've invented a system where we've replaced big city machine bosses with consultant bosses. ... The job of the candidate is to raise the money to hire the consultants to do the focus groups to figure out the 30-second answers to be memorized by the candidates. ... Then you combine the stultifying, exhausting, shrinking process with the way these auditions have occurred. ... Candidates are held to a rigidity standard, while their answers are held to a 30-second sound bite standard that is frankly absurd. "What's your answer on Iraq in 30 seconds? What's your answer on health care in 30 seconds?"

Gingrich was talking about the ludicrous and demeaning process by which we select the person who we hope will lead us into the future. The question is, if we make a circus out of the process, and the candidates submit like trained seals, how can we respect their leadership abilities? If the best they can do is follow the lead of paid consultants, how in the world can they be qualified to lead America? Perhaps we should elect their consultants.

Gingrich believes that the solution is for the nominees of each party to engage in Lincoln-Douglas style debates, such as the one he recently had with Herman Cain in Houston, Texas. These debates would occur about once a week and would last for ninety minutes each, providing the voters with an opportunity to get an in-depth look at the candidates and their individual strengths and weaknesses.

You don't have to go that far...There are many more debates already scheduled. The candidates should all get togetehr and decide on new rules, and present them as a given to the debate sponsors:

1. TWO hours for each debate..ALL televised
2. TWO minutes for each answer. Allows time for a thoughtful response...also, if a candidate has nothing of value to say, it will show that also.
3. ONE minute follow up round, after each candidate has answered the original question.
4. Wild card round at the end...each candidate has ONE minute to ask a question of any candidate, that person having TWO minutes to respond.

They also have todecide to start thinning the field..the top tier are being diminished by having to compete for time with others who have NO chance..

These aren't real debates, and the so called Presidential debates, are even worse.

There are side by side simultanious press conferances, only instead of a room of liberal reporters, you have one or 3.

And instead of allowing the person who answers the question, to answer the question, they are told to do so in soundbite format.

This is bad comedy, its a farce, its many things, but a debate it is not.

Me asking you a question, and then asking the guy next to you the same question, is not a debate, its different guys answering the same question (in limited time), they may acknowledge each other, but the response is directed to the moderator, they may referance each other, but the direction is towards the moderator.

This is useless in terms of disemminating information, and also inefficient, and unrevealing.

1. TWO hours for each debate..ALL televised

Yes.

2. TWO minutes for each answer. Allows time for a thoughtful response...also, if a candidate has nothing of value to say, it will show that also.

How do you know that is enough, or too much?

3. ONE minute follow up round, after each candidate has answered the original question.

How do you know that a single followup is enough?

4. Wild card round at the end...each candidate has ONE minute to ask a question of any candidate, that person having TWO minutes to respond.

Your basic premise seems to the that there will be more than two candidates in a debate - and that needs to change - only one - on - one debating makes any sense.
I advocate simplicity itself - each of the two candidates has a microphone and a camera for his/her own self. If he wants to fade to a still image and pick his nose, he should be able to do it. In fact, if he wants to put up a Power Point presentation, he should be able to do that. The only problem a candidate should have is the fact that his opponent has the same capabilities - and his opponent has the ability to turn on his microphone exactly half of the time.
You as a candidate can turn on your mic whenever you want - but the chess timer will leave your opponent with all the microphone time at the end if you burn up your half of the time too fast. If you are talking when your opponent turns on his microphone, you can finish your thought with your microphone if you so choose, thanks to the miracle of instant replay. And your seconds in the debate can type up what your opponent was saying while you were not paying attention. No restrictions on what information you can access - unlike the present system where taking notes is verboten.

‘fixing the debate process...’ well, first of all, don’t have it hosted by the liberal media leaders.

You can thank the GOP leadership for scheduling all of these debates with the MSM - I don't know what the hell they were thinking with that schedule, unless the GOP leadership was hoping that the MSM would be friendly to Romney and hostile to Conservatives.....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.