The Second Presidential Debate of 2008 was a Disaster; How To Make the Next One Better

To the Commission on Presidential Debates:

The second debate of the United States presidential elections of 2008, held on October 7th and moderated by Tom Brokaw, was a disaster.

Here are my observations of some of the problems with the second debate, and my suggestions for how to make the next one better:

1. In the second debate, each candidate spent half his time speaking about the other candidate. Which would then, in turn, spur the other candidate to rebut the claims made about him. In the next debate, each candidate should only be permitted to speak about his positions, perspectives, plans, thoughts, and record – not about the other candidate’s.
2. In the second debate, the candidates weren’t allowed to respond to each other – or, put another way, they weren’t allowed to have a real discussion. In the next debate, the candidates should discuss each topic until they come to a natural conclusion, or the moderator decides the discussion is over.
3. In the second debate, different types of questions had different amounts of time allotted. This was confusing and hard to enforce, and it made no sense – some answers didn’t need the full 60 or 120 seconds allotted, some needed far more. In the next debate, the moderator should allow each candidate as much time as is reasonable and appropriate to answer a question or respond to the other candidate.
4. In the second debate, the moderator didn’t strictly enforce the predetermined and agreed-upon rules of the debate. This was partly because the rules were inane and counter-productive, which made the moderator reluctant to actually enforce them. Unfortunately, this resulted in the debates being only half-moderated, which was a big reason the candidates were able to pontificate and ramble. In the next debate, the moderator should direct the debate with a firm hand. If a candidate tries to hijack the debate by continuing to speak even after being instructed to stop, the moderator should cut off his microphone.
5. In the second debate, some questions were clearly yes/no questions, but the candidates didn’t feel compelled to always answer with a clear “yes” or “no”. In the next debate, the moderator should force the candidates to clearly answer each question. Yes/no questions should be answered first with a “yes” or a “no”, which is then explained; questions which ask the candidate to make a choice should be answered with a choice, which is then explained, etc.
6. In the second debate, the candidates tended to get up from their little stools and wander over to the audience, to speak, ostensibly, to the live in-studio audience, but in actuality to the cameras. This encouraged the debate to become a series of speeches instead of a discussion. In the next debate, the candidates should sit together at a table with the moderator, to encourage direct and civil discussion.

The Commission on Presidential Debates should implement as many of these improvements as possible in the limited time remaining before the third and final debate on October 15th.

If you agree, sign the petition!