watched seemed to be more geared to the front runners. To me the person asking the question, whether they are in the audience, a tube, or one of the moderators should be randomly selected. like have the question asked so all candiates can hear it, then spin a wheel and whom ever it lands on answers that question. Like a pro football or jewlery question would go to a candidate at random. You know one of the lesser ones in the polls could end up being VP and if the Pres had an operation, be pres. Seems only fair.
2007-12-09 12:16:40 · 10 answers · asked by R J 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I fully agree.... What? is the time each participant is allotted bought and paid for?
Sure seems that way sometimes and I get really frustrated by it!
grrrrr......
2007-12-09 17:02:16 · answer #1 · answered by wider scope 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's what a Debate actual is. What we now have could be in uncomplicated terms a joint press convention. Shamelessly choreographed and especially pointless. There must be a particular subject matter for each debate, which includes Healthcare, nationwide protection, Immigration, etc. Then take a seat returned and enable them to ask the questions besides as supply the solutions. it may well be mind-blowing.
2016-10-01 06:24:06 · answer #2 · answered by graybill 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. Every candidate should get the same amount of time and the same number of questions. It is not fair to focus on the "front runners" because that is just like media endorsement of a couple of candidates. Media should be impartial, and let the people decide.
2007-12-09 12:27:55 · answer #3 · answered by Marlena 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not unless you want the debates to last for three days. I think focusing on the candidates with the biggest chance of winning is reasonable, since those people are the ones that most voters want to hear from. If debates spent as much time on low-runners like Tom Tracadero (or whatever), Joe Biden, and Ron Paul, the audience would fall asleep or just change the channel.
2007-12-09 12:24:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think the first and most important thing we need is someone who will stand up to the candidates and say out loud what so many of us think. That is that most of the candidates refuse to actually answer a question. Ask a question of substance and you get back rhetoric, mostly political platitudes, buzzwords and political B.S.
I want a moderator who will dare to say "Thank you for wasting our time, Candidate Smith."
2007-12-09 12:35:44 · answer #5 · answered by Tom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Debates are a joke!
Besides, they should stop them on account of hurting the environment. Every debate has a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions. All that hot air from the idiots on stage hurts the environment.
2007-12-09 13:21:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. The current formats seem to give the most exposure and opportunity to pre-selected candidates, which seems rather counter-productive.
2007-12-09 12:23:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'd like to see them run like the Miss America Pageant.
Put each one separately in a soundproof cage, and ask each one the same question, and have a panel of 6 judges score the answers....like 1 to 10.......Then allow a few hours for the viewing audience to vote on a debate winner.
**************************************************
2007-12-09 12:39:39 · answer #8 · answered by beesting 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They think we are interested in what they are saying but when has a debate EVER changed a person's mind on an issue. WHY do they do these idiotic things!
2007-12-09 13:57:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think questions should be restricted to policy questions, and all candidates should get to respond to those questions. There shouldn't be interview questions for individuals during debates.
2007-12-09 12:27:13 · answer #10 · answered by scorch_22 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋