On a related thought, I’ve idly mused on multiple occasions that live in-person political debates seem overweighted in importance.
I mean, there is an argument to be made along the lines of these types of debates showing candidates ability to think on their feet.
However, if I had to choose between live, in-person debates and a written format where candidates had plenty of time to formulate their thoughts and gather supporting evidence, I’d take the written format every time.
I too sense that a written format would be a better way of figuring out the truth when it comes to political stuff. But figuring out the truth does not seem to be the goal at all.
You may be interested in this clip from The Newsroom. They tried to change the way debates work by letting the moderator call candidates out for unfactual statements, not answering the question, interrupting etc.
A president or prime minister will be the public face of the nation. He’d be expected to meet with foreign dignitaries and speak in public. At the very least, a debate gives people an idea of how their leaders carry themselves when under stress in full public view.
However, if I had to choose between live, in-person debates and a written format where candidates had plenty of time to formulate their thoughts and gather supporting evidence, I’d take the written format every time.
Making prepared statements is usually done by a politician’s staff. The candidate might make some suggestions and approve/reject a draft, but otherwise such a debate would be staffers vs. staffers.
I’ll also note that once upon a time, people attended public debates in part for entertainment.
On a related thought, I’ve idly mused on multiple occasions that live in-person political debates seem overweighted in importance.
Overall I do agree. I seldom watch debates, because what the candidates do say is often just a condensed version of the party position that shows up on any one of a dozen websites.
A president or prime minister will be the public face of the nation. He’d be expected to meet with foreign dignitaries and speak in public. At the very least, a debate gives people an idea of how their leaders carry themselves when under stress in full public view.
Yeah, that’s the argument I was talking about when I said “there is an argument to be made...”.
In fact, this is a silly hypothetical because we could have both verbal and written debates.
Making prepared statements is usually done by a politician’s staff. The candidate might make some suggestions and approve/reject a draft, but otherwise such a debate would be staffers vs. staffers.
As it should be. Generally speaking, in the type of races I have in mind, politicians don’t sit around hammering out policy ideas and details, they get all of that from their staff and other advisers. I feel like it’s more important to know how good their team is, and less important to know how good they are at public debate.
My feeling is that like 70% of the value the public gets out of politicians is the quality of their team and how well the politician integrates with that team.
Before a debate the campaign of a candidate thinks about the possible questions that can be asked. Then they write talking points of how the candidate is supposed to answer the questions. The candidate memorizes those talking points and goes armed with them to the debate.
Regardles of the questions asked a good candidate sticks to his memorized talking points. If he forgets which governments departments “he” wants to eliminate he loses.
If a questions comes up that isn’t covered in his memorized talking points, no problem. Simply pick the talking point that’s nearest to to topic of the question and run with it.
Having the questions written down wouldn’t change much. It just removes the memory test that weeds out candidates who can’t remember their own talking points.
The thing which would be important is to not let politicians get away with given statements of the record. Campaigns should answer all meaningful questions that journalists have on the record.
My root comment on this subject was made in the context of the OP comparing verbal vs written conversation. To be clear, I don’t disagree with your main point and in fact, I’ve made the same argument.
I do lean towards disagreement on the idea that it “wouldn’t change much” (of course, defining that phrase is problematic), as it seems to me that a large part of “winners” and “losers” in debates is “mere” presentation and likability in that format and that these presentation and likability skills mean little towards the effectiveness of fulfilling their purported jobs. Reference the classic example of the Nixon/Kennedy televised debate (a quickly-googled link for a refresher).
In a written format presentation and likability are also important but candidates can have all the help they need with as much time as they need in a written format.
In all, though, I don’t think we disagree much on this. I, too, would like more rigorous debate moderation and if I had to choose between written debates with current standards of debate moderation and verbal debates with rigorous moderation, I’d choose verbal debates with rigorous moderation.
In a written format presentation and likability are also important but candidates can have all the help they need with as much time as they need in a written format.
“Help they need” sounds like an euphemism. It might very well mean that the candidate isn’t directly responsible for a single word.
On a related thought, I’ve idly mused on multiple occasions that live in-person political debates seem overweighted in importance.
I mean, there is an argument to be made along the lines of these types of debates showing candidates ability to think on their feet.
However, if I had to choose between live, in-person debates and a written format where candidates had plenty of time to formulate their thoughts and gather supporting evidence, I’d take the written format every time.
I too sense that a written format would be a better way of figuring out the truth when it comes to political stuff. But figuring out the truth does not seem to be the goal at all.
You may be interested in this clip from The Newsroom. They tried to change the way debates work by letting the moderator call candidates out for unfactual statements, not answering the question, interrupting etc.
A president or prime minister will be the public face of the nation. He’d be expected to meet with foreign dignitaries and speak in public. At the very least, a debate gives people an idea of how their leaders carry themselves when under stress in full public view.
Making prepared statements is usually done by a politician’s staff. The candidate might make some suggestions and approve/reject a draft, but otherwise such a debate would be staffers vs. staffers.
I’ll also note that once upon a time, people attended public debates in part for entertainment.
Overall I do agree. I seldom watch debates, because what the candidates do say is often just a condensed version of the party position that shows up on any one of a dozen websites.
Yeah, that’s the argument I was talking about when I said “there is an argument to be made...”.
In fact, this is a silly hypothetical because we could have both verbal and written debates.
As it should be. Generally speaking, in the type of races I have in mind, politicians don’t sit around hammering out policy ideas and details, they get all of that from their staff and other advisers. I feel like it’s more important to know how good their team is, and less important to know how good they are at public debate.
My feeling is that like 70% of the value the public gets out of politicians is the quality of their team and how well the politician integrates with that team.
Before a debate the campaign of a candidate thinks about the possible questions that can be asked. Then they write talking points of how the candidate is supposed to answer the questions. The candidate memorizes those talking points and goes armed with them to the debate.
Regardles of the questions asked a good candidate sticks to his memorized talking points. If he forgets which governments departments “he” wants to eliminate he loses. If a questions comes up that isn’t covered in his memorized talking points, no problem. Simply pick the talking point that’s nearest to to topic of the question and run with it.
Having the questions written down wouldn’t change much. It just removes the memory test that weeds out candidates who can’t remember their own talking points.
The thing which would be important is to not let politicians get away with given statements of the record. Campaigns should answer all meaningful questions that journalists have on the record.
My root comment on this subject was made in the context of the OP comparing verbal vs written conversation. To be clear, I don’t disagree with your main point and in fact, I’ve made the same argument.
I do lean towards disagreement on the idea that it “wouldn’t change much” (of course, defining that phrase is problematic), as it seems to me that a large part of “winners” and “losers” in debates is “mere” presentation and likability in that format and that these presentation and likability skills mean little towards the effectiveness of fulfilling their purported jobs. Reference the classic example of the Nixon/Kennedy televised debate (a quickly-googled link for a refresher).
In a written format presentation and likability are also important but candidates can have all the help they need with as much time as they need in a written format.
In all, though, I don’t think we disagree much on this. I, too, would like more rigorous debate moderation and if I had to choose between written debates with current standards of debate moderation and verbal debates with rigorous moderation, I’d choose verbal debates with rigorous moderation.
“Help they need” sounds like an euphemism. It might very well mean that the candidate isn’t directly responsible for a single word.
Yes, that’s exactly what I meant and what I would expect.