« Alas, not from the Onion | Main | Shut 'er Down! »
How to improve the Presidential debates
Slate.com lists some of the obvious suggestions, which try to inject greater intellectual content. I would prefer to see the following:
1. Allow all candidates to watch a short debate of experts -- with a fraud or two thrown in -- and ask them to evaluate what they just heard and why they reached the conclusion they did.
2. Test candidates for the ability to spot liars.
3. Give each candidate a substantive message and then give each two minutes to turn it into pure fluff. This tests communications skills, plus we can see the meat grinder in action.
4. Require each candidate to conduct an orchestra. Watch to what extent each candidate defers to the players, and to what extent he prefers "panache."
Your ideas?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 22, 2007 at 09:34 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I don't think 4 will work. It will only tell you which candidate is better liked by orchestras. There's a reason there are few women conductors, you know, and it isn't that they lack skill.
1 is the way to go. Wow, that would be something. Arguably, the single most useful strength of a politician would be his/her ability to figure out who the experts are. It would also make great TV. The only trouble is how to get TV producers to figure out who the real experts are...
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at May 22, 2007 9:54:59 AM
Forgive my doubt Dr. Cowen ...
But do intellectual content and presidential debate even belong in the same post?
As for his solutions....
I'm not sure, much of it seems to be charisma based, rather than intelligence based.
Posted by: Jon at May 22, 2007 9:55:17 AM
I'd prefer to see real-time, user-generated content as an adjunct to the "top-down" information being presented by the candidates.
So, something like this: while the debate is going on, a side panel on the TV screen shows things that have "bubbled up to the top" on the debate website, due to online real-time voting (something like "Digg"). These could be:
counterpoints to debater talking points,
the most requested follow-up questions (which moderators could use at their discretion),
informational nuggets featuring hyperlinks to pertinent websites. (could be expert sites, or something else)
Basically, if there are millions of people watching the debate, allow those people to *help* the moderators cut through the fog, and allow people to directly affect, and determine the terms of, the debate.
Now, this is a corruptible system, and conceivably it is prone to cranks, like the call-in CSPAN or NPR shows. But the voting system should alleviate the problem of individual cranks. Coordinated corruption from the audience is another matter, but even if a bunch of Edwards supporters pushed through a bunch of their questions, it wouldn't be great but it wouldn't be worse than the top-down corrupt BS we are currently served.
Posted by: mkayser at May 22, 2007 10:03:26 AM
You know how we do it?
Tournament-style! We will find our party's nominee via a series of one-on-one cage matches, a la NCAA Basketball March Madness.
So just when the adulterous, cross-dressing, megalomaniacal demagogue Giuliani thinks he can go toe-to-toe with Ron MF Paul, you sequester those two. After a few minutes of debate you quickly learn that the fascist-inclined Rudy's IQ hovers in the low double digits whereas Ron Paul is competent, even-tempered, and devoted to thorough investigation and fair discernment of the facts at hand.
Posted by: blaugh at May 22, 2007 10:17:51 AM
No debate. No audience. A series of, say, one-hour interviews with individual candidates facing tough questioners - perhaps a panel of three - who challenge the sound bites.
The debates as curently conducted are pretty useless as wys to address policy questions, because there is no mechanism to get the candidates off their scripted messages and force them to address actual issues.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced anyone would watch.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at May 22, 2007 10:29:14 AM
Just lock them in the Big Brother house for the summer and be done with it. Let them blog from the house if they want to get a message out.
Slate's suggestion of having a panel of journalists judge answers is the worst. As Tyler's #1 recognizes, the point is to find someone appropriately skeptical of "experts", not someone who kowtows to them.
Posted by: DK at May 22, 2007 10:37:01 AM
The best liar detectors are liars themselves, so paradoxically that would be a black mark. A savvy liar knows this, and would lie about his estimation of who is lying, making the entire signal noise.
Posted by: eric at May 22, 2007 10:56:16 AM
Only one issue per debate. Moderator does not ask questions, he only directs the discussion when required, and make sure every candidate has a chance to speak. Candidate are encouraged to ask questions of each other.
Posted by: Matt at May 22, 2007 11:21:00 AM
DK is on the right track. But I wouldn't let them out at the end of the summer. Call it a public safety measure.
Posted by: Trent at May 22, 2007 11:33:59 AM
A series of debates, each with fewer rules and fewer candidates. The first debate is the top ten candidates by poll numbers and then each subsequent debate has two fewer candidates. The first debate has rules like the most recent fox news debate, and in the final one the format is two opening statements and then the two candidates talk about the issues for as long as they like.
Also viewers can submit topics for questions, but only the moderators can ask questions.
Posted by: sourcreamus at May 22, 2007 12:27:10 PM
I don't think you can have a meaningful debate with as many players on the stage as we have been seeing in the pre-pre-primaries, no matter how you organise it.
Once it comes down to the 2 or 3 front runners, and the same when the parties have nominated their candidates, the debates need to be run by an experienced moderator, with no time limit on the debate itself and no "2 minutes plus 1 minute for rebuttal" nonsense. This kind of oversimplification and soundbite politics have resulted in a dumbing down of the process across the developed world.
The candidates' policies need to be scrutinised by independent Nobel winners in each of the key areas and the candidate's individual competence in those areas need to be fairly evaluated and defended. "Gee, I'd like to have a beer with that guy" is no basis for a system of government.
The process should take as long as it takes and the candidates should also be psychometrically screened in the way any senior management appointment in the private sector is screened.
Or have I just been watching too many West Wing re-runs?
Posted by: Rowan Manahan at May 22, 2007 12:34:31 PM
"Expert Moderator"--like Peter Jennings?
Make them stand on their own. Debates are useless. I really don't need a president who can get off a good one-liner. You guys want someone who can swim with the sharks? Fine. Put them all at a poker table. Of course, as mentioned above, the true sharks won't want to be seen as such.
The other option? Lincoln-Douglas. Of course there are far too many at this point to do it as a debate, but let each one give an hour-and-a-half speech. Them, a mike, whatever they want. But they have to talk for an hour and a half. All candidates submit films simultaneously, with one pulled out for broadcast (randomly) every night. Do this every other month until the primary gets down to two.
Posted by: Nathan Zook at May 22, 2007 12:55:15 PM
We should run it like American Idol or Survivor. As well, we should be able to sue any political candidate for false advertising once he/she doesn't deliver on campaign promises.
Posted by: Douglas Karr at May 22, 2007 1:33:03 PM
Resurect Milton Friedman and have him debate each candidate individually.
Posted by: josh at May 22, 2007 3:25:58 PM
Multiple choice issue Q&A prior to the debate:
Force the candidates to commit to a firm answer on key issues. Begin the debate with a multiple choice Q&A on key issues designed by a broad spectrum of political viewpoints. Include centrist options in the choice set to allow for "degrees" of opinion.
The moderators can cite the multiple choice answers in their questions during the debate without the need to dig up an obscure off the cuff remarks from an interview in 1994.
Canned answers will avoid the irritating redirection and spin like "I think the real issue here is..." and diluting qualifiers. Subsequent debate will be based on position commitment.
Hey- you asked for suggestions, no sense being realistic with my expectations.
Posted by: Scott Welch at May 22, 2007 3:30:00 PM
Nathan Zook is on the right track. As well as giving an extended argument as a speech, I'd like to see a serious paper setting out a policy solution with references.
Could be an extention of the speech or something new.
Then let various experts in the fields comment on the paper.
Publish the whole thing as it develops (paper, commentary, response from author, more commentary) each day over the course of a month.
Each month, a new paper or speach.
Posted by: Judd at May 22, 2007 4:53:10 PM
I take issue with the assumption that only a Republican and Democrat get to be invited to the presidential debates, with only one exception (Perot) since the beginning of televised debates.
New Jersey has interesting guidelines for its gubernatorial debates: any candidate who raises a minimum amount of money gets included -- about $300,000 if I remember correctly, though perhaps it should be higher in order to weed out candidates who won't have enough funds to mount a real campaign. (The candidate also receives other "major party" privileges as a result.)
For a presidential debate, perhaps the threshold should be a minimum of $50 million in contributions -- an amount enough to show that he can campaign with the two major parties. If a candidate shows in some material way that he's seriously willing to campaign for the office, why shouldn't he be included?
Posted by: Scott Sanders at May 22, 2007 5:30:37 PM
On a side note:
When did it become acceptable for a candidate to declare that they won't answer a "hypothetical"? What kind of question better illustrates how they would perform the job?
Posted by: josh at May 22, 2007 6:27:38 PM
Re #2:
English psychologist Richard Wiseman notes that people are generally as good as a coin flip in detecting liars. His forthcoming Quirkiology book covers his work in testing humans as lie detectors among other interesting experiments. His website (linked), has a video where you can participate in the lie detection study.
By the way, he gives an excellent presentation, so keep an eye out...
Posted by: Erich at May 22, 2007 9:10:24 PM
For each party's primary process, the audience should be filled with 1,000 party loyalists, each equipped with a "bullshit buzzer." When a candidate is asked a question - if 25% of the audience members are hitting their bullshit buzzer, it indicates that the candidate has failed to answer the question adequately.
Questions should be submitted by party loyalists. I agree that we don't need a household name moderator, but someone - a college professor perhaps? - who can perform a very basic function of reading questions and keeping things civil and running smoothly.
I am really sick of these soundbite answers and the all-too-common deflection. At this point I'll vote for anyone who gives concrete answers and understands basic geography and history.
Posted by: fustercluck at May 22, 2007 10:45:20 PM
Require each candidate to dance with a cat.
Posted by: Kent at May 22, 2007 10:46:13 PM
With a fraud thrown in? Now I know why I'm called to post here amongst all the ECON experts. My instincts are spot-on.
Posted by: Surabaya Johnny at May 23, 2007 2:34:23 AM
If you want better debates you should probaly do something about the people. Why is academic debates usually conducted at a higher level than political ones?
Because the audience you need to persuade is knowledgeable and cares about the subject, and has having the ability to spot logical errors.
Unless you somehow magically make the american public possess these properties, there will be no incentitive for the politicians to have a substastive debate.
Posted by: Johan Richter at May 23, 2007 8:59:03 AM
I'd make each of them tell a joke. Spontaneously. We'll be able to get rid of the pretenders like Kerry and Gore rather quickly.
I'd ask each of them to say who their idol or personal hero is and ask them to explain why.
I'd ask each of them which one thing (law, policy, system, etc) from another country they'd most like to see in the US.
I'd ask each of them to explain what they feel their main weakness is.
I'd ask each of them to say who they believe has been the best political leader over the past 150 years or so. (If anyone even mentioned Reagen, they'd be disqualified).
Posted by: glenn at May 23, 2007 10:07:50 AM
The 'Firing Line' debates were great. Why not allow the candidates to
ask and answer questions of their opponents. The Q&As would be timed,
as they were on 'Firing Line'. There would be one moderator, who would
turn off the microphone of anyone who went over time. The debators could
take notes, and challenge each other on contested points. Any point that
went uncontested would be scored for whoever made it. In this way, a score
would be kept, to be tabulated at the end by either the moderator or a computer.
Anyone who failed to get at least a '70%' (weighted) score, would be dropped
from further debates. The 'winner' could set the agenda for the next debate.
This would be more interesting to me than 'talking points as debate'.
Posted by: shaun at May 23, 2007 1:35:52 PM
