Posted on 10/17/2012 11:18:31 AM PDT by HDCochran
I'm fed up with the Debate Commission/MSM debate formats. Here's mine. Each candidate on own camera and own mike. 'Moderator' speaks/on camera only during breaks. Candidates do/say what they please when their camera and mike is on. Each has a countdown timer.
Moderator introduces candidates; summarizes rules/format.
Candidate A camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate B camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate B camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate A camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate A camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate B camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate B camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate A camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate A camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate B camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate B camera and mike for 3 min; candidate A camera and mike off.
BUZZER
BREAK Moderator says "This round Candidate B goes first.
Candidate B camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate A camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate A camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate B camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate B camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate A camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate A camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate B camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate B camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate A camera and mike off.
BUZZER
Candidate A camera and mike on for 3 min; candidate B camera and mike off.
BUZZER
BREAK Moderator says "This round Candidate A goes first.
Etc. to end with each having equal times first.
If you like this, how can we make it happen?
I like it.
Bottom line: Moderators, IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.
Thanks for posting your excellent ideas. Perhaps there can be two moderators, one conservative, one liberal. They can take turns.
They’d just get confused. “Is my mike on?” “How much time do I have left?” “I didn’t use all my time — can I add to the next question?” Can’t you just hear it.
Actually, it’s a good idea.
Get rid of the absolutely clueless, useless “undecideds”, and replace them with a small group of an equal number of former/current congressmen from both parties.
Let each side question their own candidate as well as the opposing candidate.
It would force the candidates to answer specific questions about real legislation, and would make it more difficult to demagogue with short sound bites.
Heart rate monitor, BP, voice stress analyzer, and skin conductivity would be useful too. Basically, a lie detector onscreen in real time.
How about both cameras always on for a split screen format?
And only the mic switching on and off with the timer.
This whole debate with all the phoney undeciders and the liberal moderator was just an ambush to get the president back on track. I do think the next debate will be interesting because Obama may come out swinging but Rommney has proven he is not afraid to go toe to toe with zero.
The only way I could think of to improve this would be to remove the ‘moderator’ entirely and replace him/her with a computer talking in Stephen Hawking’s voice. The entire thing could be computer programmed so as to remove the moderator’s temptation to interfere.
And, I'd replace the buzzer with a countdown clock that switches to yellow at 60 seconds, and red at 30 seconds.
Moderator is off-camera. It's just a voice actor that reads the question or topic.
Candidate 1 has 2 minutes, candidate 2 has 2 minutes to respond, Candidate 1 has 1 minute rebuttal.
Repeat, except starting with candidate 2.
Then alternate for up to 10 questions/topics. And the questions/topics come from the campaigns: 5 from each candidate.
The timer starts when the moderator finishes the question. The timer automatically stops after the candidate's last spoken word. Any remaining time is credited to the candidate's next opportunity to talk and carried over until his closing statement -- where he can use it there if he likes.
Since the microphone is off, the non-speaking candidate shouldn't be able to interrupt. But, if he does so anyway off-mic, then he forfeits his next opportunity to speak, and the time is credited to the interrupted candidate.
It's time to stop complaining about biased moderators, and do something about it. The debate isn't about moderators. A high-school student can do it.
Dennis Miller “Yes, I think that we have outdone our usefulness for the presidency. I think we should have a new thing called a “volleyballtocracy.” We elect six guys. One of them serves until he screws up. We rotate, and somebody else takes it for a while. That’s my theory.”
It’s easy, just have two podiums about 15 feet apart, with fixed non-mobile mikes.
No moderator at all.
The mikes can only be “live” one at a time. Use a simple timer to switch the power back and forth.
Leave the timing up to the two candidates to decide. It can be one minute alternating, or any other time and pattern they decide.
No moderator at all. Let the two candidates ask their own questions, Lincoln-Douglas style.
Agree, both cameras always on, 50-50 split screen.
They wouldn’t get confused with simple large “second hand” clocks in view on many sides.
A little warning ding at 30 seconds and another tone at 10 seconds, at zero the live mike switches automatically to the other.
No moderator at all.
The mikes can only be “live” one at a time. Use a simple timer to switch the power back and forth.
Leave the timing up to the two candidates to decide. It can be one minute alternating, or any other time and pattern they decide.
No moderator at all. Let the two candidates ask their own questions, Lincoln-Douglas style.
I agree - the "simple timer” should be a chess timer - each candidate is allocated half the time, and switches the opponents microphone and timer on when he finishes discussing an issue, to conserve his own time.I would add, no restrictions on notes or laptop computers and no need to stand behind a podium under continuous video scrutiny for an hour and a half.
I would allow, and encourage, power point presentations of graphs and bullet point slides. In fact I would be inclined to require it - with the proviso that all statistics on the slides be sourced and vetted by both sides a day before the debate. No slippery statistics that the opponent doesn’t have a fair chance to rebut. All statistics to be put up on the internet with sources for the public to vet after the debate.
If you like this, how can we make it happen?The TV networks have no incentive to allow this, and neither do the Democrats. Neither have any interest in a format in which the only thing that really matters is facts and logic. My conclusion is that this can only be instituted by a law requiring that the broadcast TV stations carry a specific number of such debates - and I think the number of such debates should be large, and they should start early in the campaign - as a condition for FCC license renewal.The number of debates should be large - at least six, IMHO - and the candidates should not necessarily be co-located for all, or even most, of them. Thus, each individual debate would not tie down the candidates a great deal.
Such a debate series would put a premium on facts and logic and make sophistry hard to impose. Thus, conservative candidates would be at an advantage.
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.