Useless, Useless Debate Formats

It gets a bit scary sometimes, when I have a thought that I'd like to turn into a piece for this site, only to search back through the over-500 previous columns to find that I wrote it two years earlier.  That would seem to be the case here, as I addressed the topic of the presidential debates a couple years back.

I suppose that it's "nice" to have gone back and found out that I had not changed the details in terms of what I felt then and how I feel now.  However, in the 2014 piece I was thinking two years ahead to this season.  It is now the end of debate season, three weeks from the actual election, and I am a lot more passionate about those thoughts.  So you get them again.

We have been "treated" this past month or so to three presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  They were universally awful, and it's pretty obvious why, at least to me.

First, I regard them as "awful" simply because they did absolutely nothing to help the voting populace understand what the candidates would do if they were to be elected.  I say that first, because that's precisely what the debates should be about, and that's precisely what we did not get.

We need a president.  We need a leader, no matter what your political leanings may be, and a leader who has a set of principles fleshed out to some extent by approaches and strategies to implement or support those principles.  Even if you are a liberal, that's what you need -- someone to articulate what they believe in, and how they would pursue those goals.

Unfortunately, the debate structure is an inane, counter-productive model for doing that.  We are not electing a president based on debate skills; those skills do not really translate to anything a president needs.  So the purpose of having any structured forum should not be to show debate skills, or even mastery of the issues at some micro-detailed level.  It should be some kind of forum specifically designed to allow the candidates to present the principles that guide them, and the approaches they favor using.

That, friends, is not a mano a mano "debate."

Back at M.I.T. in the 1970s, we were almost always allowed to bring reference books and notes into final exams.  The idea was that you were not at M.I.T. to memorize formulas; rather, you were supposed to be taught where to find what you needed, when you needed it.  I think, for the most part, employers of my fellow alumni would attest to the fact that we made really good employees, because we focused on process rather than rote memorization.

I think the analogous concept applies to the debates.  Not only does the artificial drama and pseudo-conflict we get now obscure a real presentation of the issues, but it puts weight on memorized "zingers" and learned lines.  That does not help the voter one bit -- memorization is not what a president needs as a skill.  Moreover, engagement between the candidates is also phony drama that reflects zero on skills a president needs.

So going back to what the voter needs (as opposed to what the political parties and the media want), it is patently obvious that the format needs to change.

I would -- and will here -- argue for a format that leads to the education of the voter.  So, to me, I think it is appropriate for the questions to be provided in advance to both candidates, so that they can prepare the answers in a way that best informs the voter watching at home.  I would even be OK essentially banning references to the other candidate in any way (or having a final wrap-up, five minutes each, to counter-argue statements of the other candidate).

So ... my debate would feature:

- A moderator serving only the function of timekeeper and deliverer of the questions; it does not need to be someone from the press (or if so, a dual-moderator structure with one from CNN and one from Fox, something like that)

- Automatic shut-off of microphones five seconds after the buzzer

- Manual shut-off the mics if the rule about not referring to the opposing candidate is breached

- Questions submitted in advance to both candidates, with prepared notes allowed

- Physical separation of the candidates (they don't need to engage; they could be in different rooms or different zip codes -- this is not about engagement or confrontation

- No audience; the audience serves no purpose whatsoever.

I earnestly believe that events like debates should be laid out so that they achieve the best interest of whom they are designed for, in this case, the voter.  Were we to start from a blank slate, we would never put them together the way they are now, because they don't achieve the desired end (informing the public).

So let's start again from a blank slate and do better.  We have plenty of time -- four years now, you know.

If we still have a country then.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.