01 Oct 2004
Debates are Poor Selectors of Officers

Few voters changed their minds, or even made up their minds, as a result of the 30 Sep 2004 Presidential Debate #1, according to a small opinion sample reported on ABC News (radio) this morning.* This is reassuring; I had heard 3 or 4 acquaintances say that they were going to watch the debates to decide whom to vote for. If this highly artificial staged event is the best information voters have after about a half a year of saturation campaigning, their votes could hardly be considered informed.

The easiest but possibly least objective question is "Who was most in control; the most confident; the most 'presidential'?". Well, Kerry, I suppose, but this has little to do with the job of being president. The ability to form confident answers quickly can be handy at news conferences, but a tendency to do so is probably dangerous in a president.

Even if "watching 'em squirm" could provide useful voter information, a debate between an incumbent and a challenger is unequal, with the challenger having more of the advantages:

• The incumbent's record is usually far better known to the public than is the challenger's. The challenger can set the stage for his attack in a mere sentence fragment such as, "...no viable exit strategy", while the incumbent may have to explain what he thinks the challenger's position is before he attacks it.
  
• The challenger is likely to have less pressing daily resposibilities, and can show up at the debate looking bright, shiny, and prepared.
  
• The incumbent has more information about the job.
  
• The incumbent must be considerably more discreet in his use of his information, much of which may be classified or extremely sensitive to protocol. E.g., the President can't brag about how well he handles the allies - the allies might get miffed at being "handled."
  
• Public perception of the incumbent and the challenger may differ for the same tactics. "Changing The Subject" was used by both candidates last night. The challenger may get credit for being visionary while the incumbent may appear evasive.

In summary, debates as done last night are poor selectors of officers. In the interest of preventing debates from becoming harmful, I propose some modifications:
1. Use a classical debate format (with a modification). Candidates agree to publicly debate one question/proposition at a time. If there are two questions, have two debates or at least separate sections of a debate. An example of a question is, "Should the USA pull all troops from Iraq by 2005?", or,"Should funding for _____ be doubled?" One candidate defends a "yes" answer (Pro), the other, "no" (Con). This is distinct from "We'll debate foreign policy."
Modification: As was done last night, candidates are granted 30-60 seconds to dispute the opponent's facts.
2. Probably, questions from the moderator should not be allowed. If allowed, such questions should come only after each candidate has made an argument and a rebuttal.
3. Enforce the "no cutaway/split-screen/reaction shot" rule on the TV networks with at least a $50,000-per-incident fine.