(MINNEAPOLIS) —The presidential debates are winding down now, and while this round has so far produced more lively moments and drama than most, we are still left with the feeling that the debates do not produce the clarity and insight we would like. How could they be improved?
Better moderators?
This year highlighted what a good moderator (Martha Raddatz, Candy Crowley) can do, and what a weak one (Jim Lehrer) can allow to slip past. But any moderator is up against a situation where they are likely having to face down the incumbent president of the United States. Moreover, they are required to fit their response into a question or a brief statement, not launch arguments directly. That isn’t going to allow them to really push a candidate.
I’ve been suggesting to my friends that the blunt comedian Lewis Black should be asked to moderate a debate. Maybe more plausible would be to ask Jon Stewart to do it. That won’t happen, as Stewart is viewed as a partisan.
Let them use notes?
It has been suggested that allowing notes would improve the content of the speeches. The British Parliament allows the prime minster to have, and regularly consult, a briefing book during Question Time, it doesn’t seem to adversely impact the quality of the back and forth with the leader of the opposition.
Of course, there would be practical problems: How many notes? How big a briefing book? How many? But still, this might be worth trying.
Make it about the team
One of the things we forget, or ignore, about our presidential candidates, is that who they surround themselves with is critical. The president selects cabinet officers, federal judges and many other officials. The quality of those officials matters.
A first step toward recognition of this would be to have the presidential and vice presidential candidates debate as a team. High school debate is often done in two-person teams. If there was also a provision made for teams to briefly consult among themselves before getting up to reply, and if teams could select who replied to a question, this could be quite interesting.
Carry that idea a step further, and allow three-person teams: the presidential and vice presidential candidates, and the secretary of state, or potential nominee for that job. For a debate on domestic issues, have the third person be a cabinet secretary such as from Treasury, the Interior or another department, or a person the candidate indicates might hold that position if elected.
In the British system, the opposition maintains a shadow cabinet with specific people designated for each senior position. It allows voters to see the team and assess if the rhetoric of the leader is matched by who they intend to put in office.
Team debates might slowly move us away from the cult of personality that surrounds presidents and make it easier to bring people’s attention to the size and scope of the process of governing.
Third party candidates?
It is also suggested that we should allow third party candidates into the debate. Third party candidates regularly appear on the ballot for president. In 2008 fully 23 different candidates from approximately 60 different political parties earned votes for president. Still more were written in.
Of course, most of these were trivial. Jeff Boss of the Vote Here Party, for example, got a grand total of 639 votes. On the other hand, candidates Chuck Baldwin (representing several parties, including the Constitution Party), Bob Barr (several libertarian parties), Cynthia McKinney (several Green parties) and Ralph Nader (many parties) were on the ballot in most states, collectively earning more than 1,600,000 votes. Ron Paul only collected votes in seven states. By the way, even Obama was the candidate for four democratic parties, and McCain for three, so having multiple parties isn’t so unusual.
None of these four third party candidates attracted much national media attention. Is that a classic “chicken or egg” situation where they don’t get votes because they don’t get attention, or did they fail to get attention because they wouldn’t get many votes?
One possible way to reshape the debates to have a wider spectrum of ideas in play is to let third party candidates in. A way to do that, but still recognize the reality of two-party dominance is as follows: Have all the third party candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes hold a separate debate. Use our technology to create a national, on-line referendum after the debate and ensure that people can only vote once in that referendum. I’d further suggest that the vote not be on the night of the debate, but a couple of days later to allow some time for discussion and follow-up. The candidate who wins that referendum gets added to the two party presidential debates as an equal.
This year, Larry King will moderate a debate among several third party candidates, but of course, that debate has no connection to the two-party debates. As far as I can recall, the only time three parties debated was the vice presidential debate of 1992 which featured Ross Perot’s running mate, James Stockdale.
I can’t predict exactly what change bringing in a third party would induce. It’s possible the two main parties would simply ignore the third candidate. It’s also possible this would lead to coalitions among the third parties leading to a stronger challenge to two-party dominance.
One virtue of having the third parties debate first would be to avoid the winning candidate having to introduce themselves to America in the debate with the Republican and the Democratic candidates.
Can we agree on facts?
Many issues in debates turn on interpretation of facts or on factual claims. How many jobs were added or lost during the Obama administration? How many uninsured people are there? How many don’t pay federal income taxes?
A technique that is used in court cases and in some administrative disputes is to attempt to force agreement on facts in advance of the debate. In other words, the two (or three) parties would put forward factual statements and data to form the basis of arguments. Negotiations would ensue to decide that, for example, when the word “deficit” was used, that each side would be committed to referring to the same thing, using the same numbers (should we include Social Security and off-budget programs or not; maybe we need two different words for this).
Perhaps, in our highly charged atmosphere this would not work, or it would prove necessary for a very strong judge to be involved to force progress. It would be nice, however, if we could clear a little ground to focus on policy.
The final focus
So what is the solution? First, we can’t expect debates to solve all our problems. But we could ask for more out of them. I wish the third-party idea would be seriously tried, even if they have a diminished status compared to the other two parties. I certainly wish the team debate would be tried.
Both ideas are feasible to implement, but whether there is the will to do so is another question.