2. In a segment called "Meet the Next," Todd presented the new idea of the week, which came from the Annenberg Working Group on Presidential Campaign Debate Reform. The idea was to use a chess clock:
Instead of allowing a set time for each answer for candidates to give, instead they would get a total amount of time that they can use for the entire debate....
Let's say you're Ted Cruz and your position on health care reform is crystal clear: Repeal every word of Obamacare. Done. You hit the clock. And then you have more time for other answers where you might want more nuance.
Posts
43 comments:
The best idea presented in a long time! Even better would be a screen above the speaker/debater that showed instant approval/disapproval of the Amerikan people.
Clock time for debates is brilliant. It would cut a lot of candidate personal history and credit-taking and promote expression of concise ideas.
Debaters would run the risk of leaving some necessary explanations out but it would speed the game.
Perry should be granted a handicap because he speaks Southern.
It would just lead to more pre-packaged, focus group tested responses.
I want to see real discussions, of real ideas.
Love the chess clock idea. Turns their verbose non-anwsering into a visible, quantitative liability.
Also, when the clock runs out the microphone gets cut.
Chess clock idea promotes clarity and concision.
One of the best things about the chess clock is the theatre of it. The candidate finishes her answer and slams her hand down on the clock. Immediately her opponent's clock starts ticking. It's like a Hitchcock movie crossed with the two minute warning. SMACK! Tick! Tick! Tick!
Then there will be the inevitable moment when a candidate finishes her statement and forgets to hit the clock. Her opponet stays mum as her clock ticks away. All across America her fans in agony cry out, "Hit the clock!" But the clock keeps ticking.
Alternatively, The Trump speaks for 20 minutes and then walks off the stage.
-XC
ANd when Hillary wastes her time looking for the reset button?
The old prediction will come true: In the future, there won't be any political ideas that don't fit on a t-shirt.
When I watch the debates (or listen to political speeches) I want to hear how the candidate will lead their party. So their answers have to be in the context of winning the election, for the sole purpose of leading their party. Often, the candidate will drone endlessly about leading the country. That task is impossible. That person is living in a fantasy world.
If we could find a candidate that could lead their party, then Congress and the Senate both become simpler. We don't want a dictator, we want a party to fix all that ails us.
"And Daniel, the importance of his faith, the importance of faith to everybody in that room that is mourning your father. Explain it."
Its interesting how serious the journos are taking the faith of these people. I haven't heard anybody say, "If there is a God, why didn't he stop this? Why didn't he save them?"
@BB,
I haven't heard anybody say, "If there is a God, why didn't he stop this? Why didn't he save them?"
Because, maybe questions of theodicy are better worked out in tomes of philosophy or theology.
I don't see anybody working out the aerodynamics of the damage to an airliner that causes the airliner to crash when a plane goes down, either. Or, when a well-known person dies of cancer, there's no discussion on the news of the mechanisms of uncontrolled cellular replication that made the cancer spread.
Technical questions belong in technical forums. That you don't see theodicy as an extremely technical question is probably because you haven't read much theology.
Get rid of themoderators and audience. Let the candidates debate each other until they drop. If they don't have basic etiquette to conduct a debate they shouldn't run. If they interrupt and talk over each other for 7 hours, then so be it.
Better yet, eliminate the debates altogether.
The moderators mold the "debates" with the questions they ask and how they phrase them.
And it is all Pauline Kael stuff.
If there are to be debates, wait until each parti has a candidate, and then just give them a lectern and a microphone each and let them have at each other. And here the "chess clock" could be a good idea.
Is it possible for an American party to tell a person that he or she cannot run for election to a position representing their party?
Karl Rove said on Fox News Sunday today that he will believe The Donald is actually running for president when Trump files the required financial statements with the FEC, which he has not done yet.
It's not often that I disagree with EVERYBODY commenting here -- maybe it's just the 96 degree heat and I just came in from watering the plants so they don't all die.
The chess clock idea would foster the worst characteristics of our politics: Simplistic answers to complex questions. The example of Cruz and Obamacare demonstrates it: Repeal every word of Obamacare? Great! And then what? Back to the old system? Foster increased competition among insurance carriers? Tort reform? What?
Also, we need to know WHY the candidate favors a particular approach. The anti-Cruz ads the next day would say, Cruz wants sick people to die! But what Cruz meant was that Obamacare causes worse health outcomes, whereas my proposed system will improve health care at a more reasonable cost, because [BEEP! Your time is up Senator.]
And then of course you've got to figure out a way to count the moderator's time against the candidate she's supporting (Yes, I mean you, Crowley).
Not necessarily. The "chess clock" just gives the speaker a choice of where to spend his time. A good choice might be in elaborating his/her statements about the serious matters that you want debated, and cutting short the blather favored by the media.
The question could be framed so that the proposed Ted Cruz response wouldn't be enough, like by saying, if you'd get rid of it what would you do instead?
Also, each candidate would want to use all of the time in the end, so there would be some strategy involved in choosing wher to go long and where to surprise people with some nice concision. It would be fin to watch because of this element of the unknown, in contrast to the old method where you know how long the candidate will go and you suspect he hasn't got much to say.
I've wished for some time that we could have debates like the ones they used to have in Canada (I say "used to," because apparently they don't do this sort of thing anymore)...
https://vimeo.com/26654849
I like the chess clock--you can take more time for answers that need it, and be more concise for others.
Perhaps a return to the Lincoln-Douglas debate format would be better than a chess clock:
The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder." The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates
There were 7 of these debates.
There has been quite a bit of discussion of the Republican alternatives to Obamacare. The Democrats just want to stay on the meme that the GOP has no alternative. Remember that there was an alternative to Medicare that was offered at the time it was being passed. It was called "Eldercare" and was means tested. Had it been passed, the fiscal implosion of Medicare might well not occur.
"the Lincoln-Douglas debate format would be better than a chess clock:"
The American public has been dumbed down considerably since then. Nobody would have the patience or interest to listen.
And, of course, women did not vote so that was a factor of increased seriousness.
I've seen the chess clock idea done before, but can't remember where. The didn't actually hit the clock - there was a clock above them that ticked off when they spoke and showed time left.
I think it's a good idea for the presidential debate or between a few candidates. When you have many candidates, more flexibility is needed as one candidate is often being challenged by the others and they should have time to respond to a direct question or attack from another participant.
The chess clock is a fine example of looking for a procedural solution to a substantive problem. Better procedures can result in increased efficiency and improvements of a similar sort, but will never improve the quality of what candidates have to say. The latter depends on the candidates, whether they have given the issues enought consideration to be able to say something significant, what they think will benefit them, what they think they have to say for base-pleasing or other reasons and what the other participants in the debate are saying. Not one of those factors will be impacted by procedural tinkering.
And, to have a Lincoln-Douglas debate, you'd need a Lincoln and a Douglas. Some of the candidates may have the intellectual heft, but it's quite rare.
The chess clock is a fine example of looking for a procedural solution to a substantive problem.
In my opinion the substantive problem* with the debates is that they are boring. They are bad theater. The chess clock adds at least a little drama**. In pursuit of theater, the candidates must hit the clock themselves.
* As policy discussions, the debates are pointless. Successful candidates spin to the predetermined stances of their party. Spin tells us both too much and too little. It tells us too much in that it tells us what we already know. It tells us too little, in that it tells us nothing of the future -- of the actual events that will shape the upcoming term. The only reason to watch a debate is to gloss something about a candidate's personality. Some may watch the debate to judge the capability or honesty of a candidate, but really even the personality test comes down to "how irritating is this person to me."
** I think the final presidential debate should take place at Burning Man, at night, during a rehearsal for the apocalypse.
My preference-
Get rid of the televised debates. Instead, have a written debate online. Questions are posed to each candidate ( some common ones from a debate committee, plus each candidate can ask questions of the other candidate(s). They would have a day or two to answer, and unlimited space. Then they could each respond to the other's answers. Links to supporting evidence would be encouraged.
Henry said... [hush][hide comment]
One of the best things about the chess clock is the theatre of it. The candidate finishes her answer and slams her hand down on the clock. Immediately her opponent's clock starts ticking. It's like a Hitchcock movie crossed with the two minute warning. SMACK! Tick! Tick! Tick!
Then there will be the inevitable moment when a candidate finishes her statement and forgets to hit the clock. Her opponet stays mum as her clock ticks away. All across America her fans in agony cry out, "Hit the clock!" But the clock keeps ticking.
That brings back good memories. Video games, internet, and cable tv have led many of potential chess players astray
"All across America her fans in agony cry out, "Hit the clock!" But the clock keeps ticking."
I was screaming at the TV after Ford make his bumbling response about Poland not being occupied by the Soviets. He was a far better man than Carter.
"And Daniel, the importance of his faith, the importance of faith to everybody in that room that is mourning your father. Explain it."
Belief in God only within the context of this life presents huge difficulties. Viewed in the context of eternity, not so much.
Never try to start a race war in a bible study.
You'll fail.
The best part of the chest clock is it would be assumed that each candidate is concerned about time management.
Therefore, stupid questions could be dismissed with short answers, instead of droning on for the allotted two minutes about idioicy.
Example: What do you think about banning all contraception?
Answer: Not going to happen. WHAM! 2 seconds down, just saved a bunch of time for a more important question.
Journos would learn not to ask idiotic questions.
Another thing....
Journalists come in with X number of questions to take up all the time. They wouldn't be able to do that anymore. A candidate could merely answer, "Next question!" And slam the timer. Dismissing questions they didn't feel were important to answer.
I really like it.
Forget the clock. This "Faith is love" is bullshit. Faith is what drives ISIS, and protestors screaming at abortion clinics, and the hanging of gays in Iran.
A chess clock and no moderator, no questions, just candidates.
Ken B,
None of which is the faith (or the love) that Christ talked about and which, apparently, some people in Charleston understand so well.
I don't know why, but timing the debates made me think of Ronald Reagan, who would not be silenced.
"I am paying for this microphone!"
Love it.
With the new slowed-down speech patterns exhibited by Hillary Rodham Rodham, she won't get 10 words in before the chess clock expires.
I understand the worry that this chess clock format would encourage shorter, sound byte answers, but frankly at these debates everything they say is focus grouped and chewed over so much that even with a two-minute response you're going to get fluff. An in depth interview with a quality journalist for each candidate is more likely to get substance out.
But the chess clock at least does allow candidates to allot the appropriate amount of time for each answer--some will be simple (e.g., "all abortions should be illegal") while for others they may be more complicated (e.g., "abortions should be legal only in the following circumstances....").
Better still to change up the format--allow candidates to ask questions directly to one another, or even just allow each of them five minutes to give a whole intro-speech with short followup questions. Mainly, we want to see them make the best case for themselves, and see how they react under pressure. Do they have grace and personality? Have they thought through the issues of the day, and present workable solutions? How might they fare against the opposition?
Comments fear tee shirt size responses, but the total time to answer questions doesn't really change. If the candidate goes the short route, it is because the long route would have likely been superfluous anyway. It won't eliminate the answer that makes a statement and doesn't answer the question, but at least it won't be long winded and make me forget the question that wasn't addressed.
Yeah, the bigger issue is that the candidates always seem to answer the question they want asked, and don't get challenged when they cite misleading stats or make a logically inconsistent point. Moderators often aren't allowed to ask followups either.
One-on-one interviews with a hardened journalist would at least give viewers a chance to see how they handle the hot seat, and press them on their answers. Debates unfortunately allow a lot of fluff and cheap sound bytes (and I expect more of that with a large field where each candidate needs attention).
Post a Comment