As the Political Entrepreneur, I am dedicated to introducing innovations that can break deadlocks and dead-end conflicts that persist for years. One that has afflicted voters for decades are candidate debates.
Debates are no longer an opportunity to be persuaded by a dialectic process where ideas are threshed and winnowed, where errors are exposed, and where the consistency between pronouncements and a history of deeds can be compared. Debates are now scripted and constrained to minimize the opportunity for gaffes forcing candidates to stay within narrow lanes of thought where they cannot stray into the unknown territory where humiliation abounds.
Most candidate debates are typically boring and unenlightening. The moderators ask predictable questions and the candidates produce rote, memorized replies that were prepared to be stripped of any controversial content.
In contrast, we enjoy vibrant dinner conversation debates we enjoy where blood can be drawn, and combatants often yield the field of battle. Instead, we usually watch a version of World War 1 trench warfare where no ground is gained or given, and the spectators are bored by the boorish behavior, interruptions, and efforts to create confusion instead of clarity.
Pennsylvania’s Democrat Senate candidate John Fetterman has postponed his debate with Republican, Mehmet Oz until October 25, long after millions of Pennsylvania voters have mailed in their ballots. Arizona’s Democrat Gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs has refused to debate Republican Kari Lake. Doug Mastriano, the Republican Gubernatorial candidate for Pennsylvania has declines to debate his opponent because of the partisan bias of the news organizations hosting the event.
Voters are hungry for a opportunity to see the truth, but they are resigned to the futility of discovering anything new during a debate. Candidates today feel free to skip debates because debates have become irrelevant for most voters.
Instead of giving up on debates, I propose to invigorate them. This proposal will make candidates completely accountable for their performance, and it will force them to expose themselves to unknown risks.
Technical Rules For The New Debates
Political debates should be run like a chess match. They work best with two participants, but this format could work for more than two. I propose that candidates are seated no more than six feet apart at an angle facing their opponent(s) and the audience.
Each candidate gets an equal amount of time to control the microphone and speak.
Except when time has expired for the opposing candidate(s), and only one candidate remains, no candidate shall speak uninterrupted for more than five minutes.
Like the game show Jeopardy, they can press a button to gain control of the microphone and the sound transmitted to the audience once the current speaker has finished.
While they are speaking, the amount of remaining time that they have to speak is decreasing until they exhaust their alloted time.
After time has expired for each candidate, they will then be given three minutes for a closing statement.
They cannot leave the stage until all the other speakers have finished.
No electronic devices allowed on stage. Minimal amount of paper notes and blank pages for writing notes during the debate.
While a candidate is speaking, the other candidate(s) cannot speak over their microphone so their voice will not be transmitted over the auditorium speakers and to the television audience while the current speaker has the floor.
Content Rules For A Debate
There can be a moderator, but their role would simply be to introduce the candidates and exert control over the audience, and add time lost by a candidate due to partisan disruptions.
Each candidate can use their time to ask questions or just make statements. If a debate had a format to cover a limited range of topics (e.g. foreign policy, housing and homelessness, crime, etc.), then the moderator could interrupt candidates going off topic.
Advantages of Running Debates Like A Chess Match
This format works for any number of candidates on the debate stage, but I think that one on one debates are most compelling and informative. This format:
Eliminates moderator bias
Encourages a dinner-table-style conversation with give and take, and follow-up instead of scripted and well-practiced monologues
Eliminates need for moderator to police rule-breaking behaviors
Ensures that content of questions will be more unpredictable, challenging, and more likely to expose weaknesses
Encourages candidates to ask brief, difficult questions where their opponent are forced to use up time to respond so talking more doesn’t always equate to an advantage
Gives more opportunity for open-ended, philosophical discourse rather than simple stacatto, question-and-answer exchanges
Because the hosts and moderators are not participants in the content, candidates have no excuses to skip the debate
Conclusion
This New Debate Format would increase viewership and elevate the quality of political discourse, immeasurably. I imagine restoring a kind of Lincoln-Douglas debate on a wide scale that will favor thoughtful candidates who are capable of persuasion rather than bombast and insults.
During 2023 I imagine Governors Ron De Santis and Gavin Newsom on a four-city tour (Los Angeles, Dallas, New York, Miami) in auditoriums packed with fans engaging in exciting political combat that could be broadcast to viewers. We can witness the two most high-profile protagonists of the Conservative and Progressive ideologies with records in office that could set the stage for the Presidential election campaign in 2024.
I am optimistic. I believe that the lamentations about the demise of American politics can be converted into plaudits and pride. Our best days of political engagement lie ahead.