Fairness to We the People Debate Format

Fairness to We the People Debate

Presidential debates should be designed for We the People, in other words, the electorate. Debates are not for campaigns nor network ratings nor propping up newscasters careers. They should serve the voters. We are the people charged with selecting our representative government and cannot do so effectively if we know nothing of the candidates and their intentions.

I, like you, just wasted two hours watching the latest debacle, er eh, I mean debate on CNN and am fed up. Every debate is riddled with farcical rules and moderators that do nothing for us. If you are a voter and wish to honestly assess which candidate deserves your vote for president, should you not want the fairest format possible? Should you not demand each candidate answer the same questions in the same allotted time?

I feel We the People deserve that much. In fact, we should demand that much.
To that end, I am proposing a fair debate format for your approval. I am issuing a formal challenge to each candidate and their campaign to accept participation and am asking you sign this petition to show it is our expectation they do.

The following is a brief outline of the format I suggest. I believe, regardless of your ideology or predisposition, you will agree with this as a fair way to judge all candidates. I would ask that you sign this petition so that we might dare the networks and campaigns to give us the information we need and deserve so that we might make an educated decision in choosing the next president of this Republic.

(This is written following the 10/18/11 debate in which 7 candidates participated. I am unaware of how or why Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson were excluded. For purposes of this proposal, all 9 candidates are included. This will lead to a slightly longer than 2 hour debate, but not enough to justify eliminating a viable person wishing to lead the country.)


Fairness to We the People Debate format proposal

Microphones will only be active for each candidate to respond. All others will be off until it is that candidates turn to answer or use a 30 second rebuttal. The candidates will see a 15 second countdown light warning of time limit. When their time is expired their microphone will be silenced. This will stop endless bickering and unfair monopolizing of time by candidates engaging in frivolous arguing.

9 Candidates issue 2 minute opening statements. (18 mins)
9 questions posed, each candidate gets 1 minute to answer. Order of candidates answering rotates each round. (81 mins)
Candidates each get 3 30 second rebuttals ONLY. (Think NFL coach choosing to challenge a call on the field.) They choose when to use them according to their own desires and priority. ( 13 ½ mins)
9 Candidates issue 2 minute closing statements. (18 mins)
This format allows each candidate the exact same amount of time to make their case, answer the questions posed and rally support. Moreover, it allows us, the electorate, a fair chance to hear each candidate discuss each key issue without the grandstanding, bickering and media manipulation that has brutally skewed the previous debates.
Full running time for the candidates if all 9 participate: 2 hours, 10 ½ minutes.
Obviously network control and commercials would lengthen this. Most previous debates lasted approximately 2 hours. I think the extra 30 minutes is a reasonable concession by all parties concerned for the good of the republic.