[EM] Presidential debate ordering

[Howard Swerdfeger]

mrouse1 at mrouse.com wrote:
> A few days ago, we had the Republican debates on TV, and I came to the
> conclusion that having ten people on the stage at once was an unmanageable
> mess. At thirty seconds per answer, candidates were limited to faux anger
> and soundbites, while the cheers and applause gave it a gameshow feel.
> (Well, okay, so it was better than the debate on MSNBC, where you had
> questions like "What do you hate most about America?")
> 
> What I'd like to see is one-on-one, round-robin debates. Now, we could
> pair up the candidates randomly, but where is the fun in that? What I
> thought might be interesting is to have each candidate pick the order he
> wanted to debate every other candidate, and choose the order that best
> matches the aggregate preference. Unfortunately, I am not certain the
> fairest way to piece together incomplete debate orders (each candidate
> would have nine debates, but the total field would have a total of 45
> debates).
> 
> Anyone know the best way to do something like this? It would be similar to
> scheduling a baseball season or other sporting event, so it would seem to
> have a use beyond just debates.
> 

Interesting idea. 10 people on stage is to many. but 45 pair wise 
debates it a lot for the public to watch.

Perhaps there is a good middle ground say, 4-5 people on stage at once. 
and try to make sure that each candidate faces each candidate on stage once.


> Thanks!
> 
> Michael Rouse
> 
> 
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info