With the last presidential debate quickly approaching, there has been a lot of discussion about the past two. These discussions usually revolve around what the two candidates said in response to each other, and not so much on the questions asked. This has led to many bringing up the idea of changing how the debates are conducted. What if there was no live audience? What if there were fact checkers? What if the moderators were no longer journalists? How would all of these changes affect the way presidential candidates’ debate?
No live audience. A debate without audience reactions will free up some time for more questions to be answered. Audience reactions can often spur on a candidate to talk over the time limit. The more a candidate talks over the time limit, the less questions get answered. Removing the audience will also change how the candidates are debating. Right now, more than ever, candidates are aiming for the audience's reaction. If they can get the audience to react positively, they feel as though their point has been accepted. Without the audience, we get rid of reactions and get back to policies.
Fact checking has quickly grown in popularity over the past debates. Accusations fly regularly about one or both of the candidates having lied about something. During the debate much of it is spent with the candidates saying that either the other person is lying now or before. These constant, often off topic, questions of truth can be avoided if someone was checking the facts in real time. The debates could be fact checked live as America watches. This way the American public knows right away whether what was said is false or not. After each answer a candidate gives, a space can be saved on screen to say whether it was a fact or not. This can also be prepared beforehand with research on each candidate's position or even in the moment with a little help from the internet.
Moderators have long been people from some area of the news industry whether it be journalists, critics, or television icons. What if they were people who had no connection to the news at all? What if a professor of American History moderated the debate? He or she would ask questions relating to the same subjects but in a completely different way. The focus would change even more if the moderator was an anthropologist. These moderators might seem like odd choices, but they would bring new knowledge to the debate area. Changing who asks the questions also makes it harder for candidates to accuse the moderator of bias. Unlike a journalist, a professor or anthropologist would not have necessarily commented on either candidate before. Fresh eyes and new questions.
These are just a few ideas currently flowing on what aspects of presidential debates can be changes and hopefully improved upon. Check out the links down below for other ideas about the debates.
