Let’s begin with the assumption that people watch the debates for the purpose of learning more about the candidates instead of reinforcing their existing opinion. That’s a big assumption, but if the latter holds true, their viewing pleasure would be enriched by simply going to their candidate’s website and watching the political advertisements commercial free, without interruption and untainted by anything the other candidates say.

The public sphere abounds with complaints about the primary debates.  Some direct their wrath at the candidates, most direct it at the media and too few direct it at the format. Unless you and the punditocracy think your candidate performed well, there is probably some criticism. Let’s take a look at what the ideal debate looks like, where the debates have fallen short and how the organizers could improve them.

1. The questions and the questioning. The most productive debates focus on policy—proving a problem exists, offering a solution, then demonstrating the solution will solve the problem. Genuine differences may exist among the candidates in any of these three areas, but those differences won’t become apparent through questions that focus on ad hominem attacks, invite candidates to recite their resumes or allow candidates to deliver their standard stump speeches. Debates should contain what debaters call “clash”–engaging with the argument. Rarely have we seen candidates engaging with the argument—that’s the problem with the questioning. Moderators haven’t done a thorough job pressing candidates for direct questions to direct answers. Instead of following up, moderators have, for the most part, been content to sit back and let the candidates criticize the media.

To be fair, moderators have asked some feckless questions or couched their questions in terms designed to provoke a food fight. Media apologists are fond of saying it doesn’t really matter what question is asked or how it’s asked, what matters is how the candidate answers. Under this theory, moderators might as well ask, “Have you stopped beating your dog yet”? Instead of listing some of Trump’s more dubious claims, then asking if it was a “comic book version of a presidential campaign,” why didn’t John Harwood of CNBC simply ask if any of Trump’s policies was “realistic” or “workable”?

Solution: Maybe it’s time for journalists to relinquish their role as moderators. They have to be concerned about their networks ratings, their own credibility and projecting a persona of “unbiased.” The ideal moderator would be disinterested—that is, concerned only with the candidates’ answers, making sure they did answer and probing the reasoning that got them to their answer. There are any number of public intellectuals, scholars of argument and journalists who have nothing to prove available who would be infinitely better (or at the very least not any worse) in the role of moderator.

 

2. Two much focus on being quick-witted and thinking on their feet. If that many people appreciate a quick wit, why don’t we require a candidate to have some background in professional comedy? It would certainly be a crowd pleaser, as evidenced by the number of tweets during the debate that contain the words “zinger!” or “slammed!”. Demanding an immediate answer to a surprise question also engenders “gotcha journalism,” a practice almost all candidates have leveled against the moderators. Candidates might as well preface each answer with “Well, just off the top of my head. . .” Do we really want someone sitting in the White House who excels at saying the first thing that comes to mind?

 Solution:  Give candidates the general questions in advance. The moderators would still have follow-up and “keep on track” prerogatives. Sure, the candidates would probably have an army of staffers drafting responses, but the responsibility for the answers would lie with the candidates themselves. Anyway, are the staffers doing anything they wouldn’t do after the election? At least this would provide some insight into the team that would be in place after the election. This approach would provide much more opportunity to flesh out their ideas if they chose to take advantage of it.

 

3. Candidates interrupted and talked over each other. Whether they felt like they must “man up” or feared letting personal attacks go unanswered, candidates consistently tried to talk over each other or the moderators or simply appropriated more time by refusing to quit speaking. Part of the problem would be solved by changing the format (see #5 below), but a more radical approach might also prove to be more effective.

Solution: Have the producer mute the microphones of the other candidates when it’s not their time to speak. Somewhat juvenile maybe, but the behavior it corrects is juvenile as well.

4. Access to the public sphere was limited. Even in our uber-connected age, some people don’t have cable or have limited or no access to the Internet. Apparently, the RNC and DNC reach some agreement with a media outlet to air the debate after agreeing to some arrangement (and I’d be extremely interested in learning what exactly that arrangement entails if anyone has the details). Less murky was the commercially driven agenda of the arrangement. From the opening (which the twittersphere likened to a monster truck rally, an NFL championship game and an awards ceremony) to the commercial breaks interrupting throughout, the event was designed to increase ratings.

Solution: Whatever happened to the idea of providing a public service when you use the public airwaves? If cable networks want to air the debates in addition, even better, but If you use the public airwaves, you air the debate. Period.

 

5. The format of the debate. It’s almost inconceivable that eight people can provide any kind of substantive answer in a two-hour debate. They feel they have to respond when attacked or questioned, get in their talking points and take pot shots at the other candidates (excuse me, I meant practice the politics of personal destruction). The current format lets candidates filibuster a tough question with attacks on the media, then complain they didn’t get a chance to answer the question (see Ted Cruz in response to whether he was a problem-solver, given his opposition to budget compromise in the third debate).

Solution: Give candidates two minutes to make an opening statement and let them use the time however they want. They can number their accomplishments, attack the positions or other candidates or make the case why they would be the best choice. In the subsequent questioning, give each candidate equal time to answer the same question. This absolves the moderators of charges they more time to some candidates and reassigns the blame to how candidates choose to use their time.  At the end, ask each candidate to provide a fact he or she would like verified, then give the results immediately after the debates before closing statement. This way, viewers would have access to the analysis instead of relying on their own preferred (and yes probably biased) news outlet.

 

These solutions probably won’t gain popularity because they are both more constraining and more liberating. They are less commercially attractive. They hold both candidates and moderators to account. But if implemented, we’d get away from entertainment and closer to an understanding how people stand on the issues.