“Resolved . . .”
Saturday, October 11th, 2008I’ve watched both presidential debates this season, plus the v.p. debate and some covering state and local positions. I don’t know why I still tune in when years of experience have taught me that no matter the party, candidate or position, these forums rarely provide me with the kind of information I am seeking to help me decide whom to vote for. Well, okay, maybe they do give me the opportunity to see how these men and women think on their feet, but rarely do any of them answer a question directly. I get so frustrated with vague, generalized responses; bits of stump speeches I’ve heard numerous times already; and attacks on and claims against their opponents.
What I want is brief, concise answers to the questions that were posed. I DON’T want candidate A to describe his/her position in terms of what he/she states is candidate B’s position. I’ve decided that the current debate format (which, let’s face it, doesn’t really look or sound like a genuine debate) should be ditched in favor of an opportunity for each person to address questions posed to him/her individually. It would look something like this:
The candidates don’t appear on stage at the same time, saving them from the temptation to start pointing fingers at each other.
Each candidate is presented with the same questions and given the same length of time to answer them.
Going overtime results in a shut-off of the microphone and/or camera, penalty points, and/or a mild electric shock! The same penalties hold true if the candidate wanders off topic or begins talking about the opponent or his/her position rather than the candidate’s own.
I don’t know if such a system would be more entertaining than the current “debates” are (well, perhaps so if the electric shock is used!), but it would almost certainly be more enlightening.
Patty Vanikiotis, proofreader
