Millions of us will tune in tonight to watch the final presidential debate, but it’s difficult to imagine why. Anyone who sat through the last two knows what to expect: precious little.
Let’s hope we’re wrong.
Critics of the presidential and vice presidential debate format have been sounding the alarm for years that the system is broken and bad for democracy. Simply put, it has become far too easy for the candidates to repeat their campaign-trail talking points — which often include misleading statements or outright falsehoods — and avoid answering the questions.
We have to agree. It’s time to change the system.
Since the debates were co-opted in 1988 by the two major political parties through a nonprofit coalition called the Commission on Presidential Debates, the events have become too easy for the candidates to game.
We want to see how the candidates might think on their feet. We want them to answer the questions they’re asked, and then to face a follow-up question if needed.
The last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama provides the perfect example. The town-hall- style debate wasn’t a town hall at all. The questions were submitted ahead of time, then hand-picked by the moderator. When the time came, the pre-selected citizen read from his or her pre-selected card. No follow-up questions were allowed. In fact, the rules have become so un-American that by 2004, the citizens in the town hall were told their microphones would be shut off if they tried to ask a question other than the one on their card.
“Unfortunately, in the town halls of late, the citizens are nothing more than props,” Mitchell McKinney, a professor of communications at the University of Missouri and presidential debate expert, told us Tuesday.
McKinney faults the candidates more than the system. He argues that nothing can make a politician answer a question he or she doesn’t want to answer.
Point taken. But we argue that the candidates ought to face a more thorough system. If they still choose to avoid the issues, viewers will see them do so and remember the obfuscation inside the voting booth.
The so-called Commission on Presidential Debates allows the candidates to craft extensive “memorandums of agreement” on how the debates are structured. It is in that process that change should take place. Or it should be abolished.
As we said, moderators and the town-hall citizens should be allowed follow-ups. We’d like to see a panel of experts instead of a single moderator. But even with a single moderator, he or she should be willing to counter the half-truths and falsehoods and keep candidates on point.
Candidates control their rallies and restrict access, and that’s their prerogative. But anyone running for president ought to face us as citizens on our own terms — at the least — during the debates.
