How to fix the Presidential Debates?

Tyler Cowan has some fun ideas on how to improve the Presidential debates this year.

Personally, and typing as a veteran of far too many debates from school and university days, I'd be entertained by the sight of seeing US politicians wrestle with the British Parliamentary Debate style. The idea of seeing four candidates from each party being given 15 minutes to prepare seven or eight minute speeches on a given topic during which they would be expected to take three or so interventions from their opponents would at least show s who had some wit and ability to be persuasive. Later speakers would, of course, be expected to rebut the arguments made by their opponents as well as introduce their own case.

I suppose that one would have to concede that these debates be on pressing electoral issues such as the war, immigration etc etc. But it would be more fun by far, I think, to see Hillary taking on Rudy in a debate on the proposition (to pluck a favourite motion from the misty recesses of my mind) "That This House Believes That Brutus Was an Honourable Man".

Could this happen? Certainly not. Would it tell us much about any candidate's ability to be a half-decent President? Not necessarily. Might it prove more entertaining than the current system? Undoubtedly.

UPDATE: Slate's John Dickerson also has some reader-generated thoughts on this.

Comments

[Randy (Internet Ronin)]

I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but I definitely would treasure a presidential debate on the proposition, "That This House Believes That Brutus Was an Honourable Man." I think it about as likely to give us an indication of a candidate's abilities as any of the twaddle currently passed off as "serious questions and answers" in current so-called debates.

The idea of millions dialing library help desks across the country the first thing the next morning to ask, "Who is Brutus and what party does he belong to?," is quite appealing.