mardi 26 janvier 2016

My Idea for a Better "Debate" Format

I think the consensus is that all of the debates have been fairly lousy from a "inform the voters on issues" perspective. Even the candidates seems to think they suck. With that in mind, I put together a few rules to improve things. I know there isn't a chance of these being used, but I figure it would be interesting to see where people go with it:

1) No more than 5 candidates. I would leave it up to the host1 to decide who will be there, but there's no need for a clown car on the stage. I also bet that after seeing these rules, you won't have to worry about too many candidates accepting

2) The first round will consist of 3 to 5 questions about policy or current events that each candidate will be given in advance and all candidates will answer the same questions.

3) The second round will be each candidate has to answer one criticism of a statement or action of theirs or give a response to a perceived weakness in their campaign. They may or may not be given this in advance.

4) During all this, fact checkers will be going through the statements to ensure accuracy. The third round will consist of the candidates accounting for any discrepancies between what they say and what the fact checkers find.

5) Each candidate will get 1 minute for opening remarks, 1 minute for closing remarks, and 3-5 minutes2 to answer each question posed to him/her in the first 2 rounds. The host can decide how much time to allot to the third round.

6) The microphones are off by default. A candidate's is on when it is his/her turn to speak and shuts off when their time is up. (a candidate may be allowed to defer left over time from one question to another question at the host's discretion)

7) If you go off topic or attack another candidate, your microphone is shut off. We want to know what you think and/or plan to do about the issue, not what someone else said or did.

This format should
  • keep the event moving
  • give each candidate equal time to discuss the same issues
  • prevent personal attacks and confrontations between candidates and moderators
  • prevent any candidate from claiming they were "attacked" or ignored
  • force the candidates to say something of substance

Good ideras? Bad ideas? Anything else you would add?

1 "Host" refers to the group or groups organizing the event, not the moderator(s).

2 Obviously, this will be up to the host and will also be dependent on the number of participants. Trying to keep this under 2 hours.


via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1K9KFal

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire