In order for this to work I believe that the Political Debate would be taped and viewed by a selected Scoring Committee. The Scoring Committee would focus on various aspects: Accuracy, Exposing an obvious flaw in the opponents stance, etc. Points are assigned or penalized and chronographed.

The following night the Debate is televised with red and blue boxes indicating a "number of punches" score and possibly a one line summary explaining score changes such as:

Blatant falsehood -3 points

Introducing viable solution + 3 points

Dumb looking smirk -1 point

Abuse of the English Language -1/2 point

It would would also be fun to hear a buzzer and see a giant red X appear over the candidate for Blatant falsehoods. Similar to one of those old game shows.
-- Zimmy, Oct 14 2004

Objective analysis of the U.S. debates http://www.factcheck.org
Every American voter should get something like this in the mail. [yabba do yabba dabba, Oct 17 2004]

Kevin Drum scores a debate. http://www.washingt.../2004_10/004897.php
From the Washington Monthly. [jutta, Oct 19 2004]

Funny you should mention that. I put in some time on the debate squad in school, and I listened to several minutes of the debate last night [all I could stomach ].

I noted that when one candidate would wreak havoc with points A, B, and C, the other candidate would rebutt by bringing up point D, but completely ignore the three points he got gored with.

This is the standard for political evasion, but would lose you a scored debate in a professional atmosphere.
-- normzone, Oct 14 2004


I'd watch that.

At least the fact checking part. I don't care to have dumb smirks pointed out, just chop the debate into parts and tell me whether they're lying and what the facts are. Could be done by a panel of journalists, people from factcheck.org, etc.

I wonder what's holding people back from producing this.
-- jutta, Oct 14 2004


The problem with this idea is getting someone to count up all the negative points... "And at the conclusion of the debate John Kerry was ahead by a nose with -2178 points to Bush's -2232"
-- brodie, Oct 14 2004


[norm] Yeah, but pounding on the podium earns you one point per pound. So it's even.
-- phundug, Oct 14 2004


I'd want to see negative points for "...but first, I'd like to talk about the previous question". Great idea, otherwise.+
-- theircompetitor, Oct 14 2004


Excellent way to put some fun into an otherwise absurd and pointless tv broadcast. After all, people just don't care about the facts... we're morbid enough to just want to see when they "smack" each other with lies, as jutta points out in her anno.

As I've said here before, and with all the respect my baker fellas deserve, I seriously can't understand how anybody with an average IQ will base their vote on something like a debate. Words are ephemeral and irrelevant..., just propagandistic BLAH BLAH BLAH; a chance for candidates to say things in the way they should be said for the audience to adjust the content to match with what they want to hear.

Just PLEASE; don't vote for Bush again. Gracias.
-- Pericles, Oct 18 2004


[Pericles], most of us didn't vote for Bush the first time around.

I just finished reviewing my political history.....I guess the Electoral College was set up in the Constitution because the founders didn't trust the common man to elect an appropriate leader by popular vote.

What a whacked system for choosing skilled leadership. It's a great system for perpetuating a swing between two groups of powerful people, though.
-- normzone, Oct 18 2004


//What a whacked system for choosing skilled leadership//

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Grant, Monroe,Wilson, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan

Since easily a quarter of our presidents are truly historic figures, I think we do ok, thank you.

Lincoln won a plurality of votes, but an overwhelming Electoral College mandate.

In 1960, Kennedy got barely more votes -- 100,000 or so, and we all know about Chicago -- but an Electoral College mandate.
-- theircompetitor, Oct 18 2004


So you're saying that Lincoln and Kennedy would have made it in without the electoral college, as well as the others. I'm sorry, what was your point again?
-- Worldgineer, Oct 18 2004


[theircompetitor], I knew you'd be the next annotater....you and I have had this discussion before.

The problem is that you don't have to have leadership skills or experience to win the presidency. All you need is the backing of a group of rich people, and an accomplished political machine.

[edit] [theircompetitor], you've no email address posted I can contact you at, so I'll take it here one last time.

You've said before that you have a company. Are you telling me you'd be satisfied with a system of hiring that yielded a 25% good employee rate? You wouldn't make any changes to your hiring process ?

I work in Quality Assurance. If that was as good as I could do, I'd be fired.
-- normzone, Oct 18 2004


That's true, but I certainly wouldn't blame the electoral college for all of it. Anyway, poor Overbaked is getting lonely.
-- Worldgineer, Oct 18 2004


I'm saying, [world], that the Electoral College typically amplifies much closer victories, though occasionaly -- indeed, very occasionally, producing querks as in the 2000 election. This amplification tends to build on the mandate, which is not a bad thing.

As reform goes, I'm more interested in candidate selection reform than election reform. In other words, sure Gore would have been president without electoral college, but McCain would have been president -- and by a landslide -- were he nominated by the GOP.
-- theircompetitor, Oct 18 2004



random, halfbakery