[EM] Presidential debate ordering

Howard Swerdfeger electorama.com at howard.swerdfeger.com
Tue May 22 13:35:59 PDT 2007


>>>
>> 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.
> 
> There could be different criteria when organizing the debates:
> 1) Fix the size of the debate groups
> 2) Arrange each candidate the same number of pairwise debates with  
> other candidates (typically one with each)
> 3) Give each candidate same number of minutes in TV
> 
> Criterion 3 is maybe a fair criterion for politics. In addition to  
> this one could fix the size of the groups (allowing some to debate in  
> smaller groups could be considered an advantage). These together mean  
> that in most cases we would need to violate criterion 2. Some  
> candidates might meet twice. Maybe that would be no major problem.  
> They would have maybe little less to talk to each others at the  
> second round and they could concentrate beating the others, which  
> would not be quite fair. But they could also continue their previous  
> fights and balance the situation this way :-). Would this method be a  
> fair method?

Or even better then asking if its fair....is it useful?


Taking a step back:
Firstly we can ask are selves two questions.
Are debates useful? and Why?

Then we need to set out to design a debate structure to maximize the 
attributes of the debate that are useful, or abandon the debate 
structure for something else that better meets the needs of the public.

So, I do Find debates useful for 3 reasons.
1. They inform me of candidates alleged positions on the issues
2. They offer some insight on the candidates ability to think logically 
and interpret/deconstruct an opponents position.
3. They offer some insight on the charisma of a candidate

I would say debates are most useful to me personally when each 
candidates positions are clearly stated. and ample time is granted to 
each opponent to fully explain why the opponents position is wrong. It 
should offer a variety of opinions but allow me to quickly skip over 
candidates I have eliminated or issues I feel are not important.

As such perhaps the debate could be pre-recorded over several days with 
each candidate given 30 minute opening/closing statements and 10-15 
minute answers on each question. followed by a 5 minute follow up.

The marathon debate should then be Indexed for easy retrieval on the 
Internet, or other similar media.

But then that requires abandoning the traditions set in place before the 
  printing press was common place. much less computers, and the Internet.

cheers,
How

> 
> Juho
> 
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Michael Rouse
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
>>> list info
>> ----
>> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
>> list info
> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list