[ThereBeDragons]

Does anybody agree with me that major political debates (as in those between prospective candidates for an office; for example the US presidential election) should happen in text?

In this medium things would be subject to more scrutiny, meaning that candidates would be harder-pressed to deflect away criticism without actually saying anything (which they love doing) and would be more likely to say things of substance; in addition the candidates could bring facts and studies to support their cases.

Something I've been thinking for a while.

[Nets]

But in text it is much harder to read the candidates non-verbal reactions to the questions and each other, which matters quite a bit. Though I acknowledge that the candidates are substantially "prepped" before debates now, I think giving them time to write out worded replies with their aides would become meaningless.

Of course making them all show up for like a 3 hour closed book essay test proctored by, well, me, would be fairly sweet.

[Zeitgeist]

But in text it is much harder to read the candidates non-verbal reactions to the questions and each other, which matters quite a bit

Indeed.

I can certainly see obvious advantages, however lets be realistic. I'm sure we all want as many people as possible to watch and follow election debates, but would the politically apathetic majority of society bother to read them?

[Zyx]

I had already said that each Presidential Candidate should require to have 10 1-3 page essays attached to their candidacy, and from those essays one should be allowed to understand their policies and they should have complete faith in these papers . . . regardless of writers.

As to thread topic, debates are meaningless.

For some reason, people demand "debates" but a debate is not where it is at. Perhaps interviews, and ideology references . . . but not debates.

Pitting ideas against one another is foolish if one is right or both are wrong.

[QatzelOk]

One amazing thing that could happen is that politicians could be forced to mark an X in a ballot of their own before making voters commit to marking theirs.

A platform card would be submitted acting the candidates to answer some specific questions with either and X or nothing.

Example for today's candidates:

Code: Select allWould you withdraw troops within a year if elected? Yes No

Would you work towards equalizing income levels? Yes No

Would you introduce universal health care Yes No

Would you actively pursue environmental treaties? Yes No

Have a total of less than 100 questions, let the candidates take them home and study the questions before answering Yes or No to each one. And then present all of their answers to the public at least two months before the election. This gives time to compare and to ask further questions in live debates.

It would let the public know exactly where the candidates stand before committing to one of them. Besides a penetrating media and open education system, public openness on the part of politicians is another essential part of a functioning democracy.

[Gnote]

I don't mind Qatz's survey idea, but I think it can only be part of the bigger picture.

I once began a discussion on PoFo about the responsibilities of elected officials and the extent to which they have a duty to 'represent' vs. 'lead'.

I think the survey idea addresses the first of those, in that the candidate's views on the issues important to the electorate can be heard. It doesn't, however, address the second responsibility. What, for instance, does the survey tell us about a candidate's potential position on future issues - those that aren't important today, but may become important during the person's term in office? What does it tell us about the candidate's ability to recognize unpopular but necessary changes, and attempt to convince the population of their importance?

[QatzelOk]

What, for instance, does the survey tell us about a candidate's potential position on future issues - those that aren't important today, but may become important during the person's term in office? What does it tell us about the candidate's ability to recognize unpopular but necessary changes, and attempt to convince the population of their importance?

The stands a candidate take in the present tell us all that we need to know about a candidate's stand in the future. There is no other way to judge the future actions of someone than their past, combined with their current "choices."

Plus, some of the questions could deal with future possible questions, like: Would you consult Canadians in a referendum before signing any more international trade agreements?