Debates Would Be Meaningless Even If They Were Debates

George FarahThe New York Times has an article by Brian Stelter about the presidential debates, Memo Outlines Format and Rules for Candidate Debates. It basically demonstrates the the debates are a sham.

The most important part of the article is a quote from George Farah, “An anti-trust lawyer who runs Open Debates, a group that calls the current debate system antidemocratic.” He says:

In 1992, audience members and the moderator could ask anything, and no one knew the questions to be asked. In 1996, follow-up questions were banned… In 2004, all questions had to be prescreened by the moderator in advance, in some ways arguably reducing the audience members to props. In 2012, there are new restrictions on what the moderator herself can do—no follow-ups, no reinterpretations of questions, nothing really, except keep time and hold the microphone.

Of course, there is also the argument that Lawrence O’Donnell has put forth that the debates are basically useless because they don’t test what a president actually does.

But Farah is correct that we can’t get to the heart of what the candidates believe if we can’t have an honest debate—artificial as the whole process may be.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.
Avatar

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *