Who needs moderators? Only need a time keeper. Allow a certain time to expound on a certain subject, say 3 to 5 minutes. No counterpoints by those named and 1 minute rebuttal time. If a candidate goes over his allotted time, it comes off their 2 minute closing argument time.
No, I think moderators are needed to keep the debate on track.
But their questions or topics should be open ended. This “Our economy is X, the rates of this are y, Z people are out of work “ fake facts before the question “what are you going to do to fix that?” It’s so stupid. Instead, say something like “This next segment is going to be on the economy. We’ll go down the line. Your approach as President to the economy of the United States, both general philosophy and specific influences your Presidency could have. You’ll each have 4 minutes, and afterward everyone will have two more minutes to rebut if wished.”
And if someone really does take unfair advantage, they should be warned and then cut off after egregious behavior. Which I wouldn’t expect.
I definitely would like to see more forest questions and less trees. I know a lot of other voters might want more specifics but I would also like to hear their economic philosophies, their thoughts on the geopolitical state of the world. I bet some of those differences are huge. I also would like our moderator to be a Constitution Believer. I’d like him or her to keep modifying the questions as I did above, noting that there is only so much we even WANT our President, as a Representative of the People, to BE ABLE TO DO. We forget we aren’t electing Santa Claus or a king. Most Presidents you aren’t going to like. You don’t WANT them to have much power.
[In my home away from home, Switzerland, their President rotates among their top 7 leaders, and it is solely a decorum position.]
Good ideas.
I would add that the time limits be strictly enforced. Give a 10 second warning and cut the mike when the time is up. The would quickly learn to adapt to the rule and finish up before they are cut off.