Instead of hijacking the time they have been given for spouting sound bites or implanting an answer to a question they think they should have been asked.
How do we force Political debaters to answer the questions they are asked?
2007-06-04 04:19:41 · 12 answers · asked by jake T 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I have often wondered this same thing. After stating the question they, meaning both parties candidates, simple go off on some crap that has nothing to do with the question. I think the moderators should interrupt and politely ask them to just answer the question.
If they don't they should be escorted off the stage
2007-06-04 04:25:54 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Follow up questions. By the moderators and/or the other candidates. And we should give the candidates more than a minute to answer each question. If you really want to explore an issue, you have to be willing to spend several minutes per candidate per issue. Debates all try to explore every issue with every candidate, and there isn't enough time to do that properly. We should switch to debates that only cover a single issue, and have a debate on each issue. Or have debates that run for like 10 hours. Then they could just show a hour of highlights.
This will be less of an issue when we're further along in the election, and we've narrowed it down to a smaller number of candidates. But even then they still probably won't run the debates in a useful way.
2007-06-04 04:50:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is not any regulation that announces that a candidate could answer any and all questions posed to him. yet on the different hand maximum applicants attempt their ultimate to respond to the questions simply by fact their ideals on specific themes are in lots of situations a factor of their platform and that they like the standard public to comprehend what they suspect and how they plan to function while they're interior the White abode. as quickly as in awhile a question does get asked that the candidate in simple terms does not prefer to respond to so he makes use of it as a doorway into yet another subject rely or concern. usually the moderator could reask him the question so as that he's compelled to respond to. matters like "What replaced into your courting with the terrorist/bomber bill Ayers?" are in lots of situations positioned on a returned burner by utilising the candidate who incredibly does not prefer you to comprehend that him and Ayers are good acquaintances. many situations while asked approximately their plans the candidate will provide the main time-honored of solutions simply by fact he doesn;t incredibly have a plan.
2017-01-10 12:28:45 · answer #3 · answered by nicolaevitsch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The moderator should simply say - "That reply did not answer the question - Again, the question was..." and keep asking it over again.
2007-06-04 04:28:35 · answer #4 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah good luck with that. Does it matter, they always side step. I guess we could tie them to a chair and hold a redhot poker next to their face, be about the only way.
2007-06-04 04:23:24 · answer #5 · answered by bs b 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Simple. Ask them "yes" and "no" questions, then only AFTER they answer give them 45 seconds to explain why.
2007-06-04 04:23:35 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Let the people decide. Make sure they don't get elected.
2007-06-04 04:22:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Send them to Gitmo
2007-06-04 04:22:24 · answer #8 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Have pies thrown at them when they start spinning.
2007-06-04 04:23:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Don't vote for them
2007-06-04 04:22:27 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋