Democracy and debates – How many – How much?

by YankeeJim | January 26, 2012 at 05:28 am

57 views | 2 Recommendations | 0 comments

The posted article addresses “why there are so many presidential debates.” It misses the point in answering this question.

I advocate that voters need to improve their qualification process for all office holders. I developed qualification criteria for President and members of Congress, Representatives and Senators. I shared that here at NowPublic and elsewhere and will do it again if people want to read it.

The process for Presidential Candidates to take their views and campaigns to the public is affected by the presence and use of modern media. A combination of in-person appearances, broadcast media, and the internet are the means by which we see candidates perform.

What we listen and look for is most important, qualifications and past performance to voter criteria.

The field of candidates is large in the case of Republicans in Campaign 2012 and it makes sense to have a number of debates to whittle down the options. Also, there are a number of major news outlets, each with a political spin. Therefore, each channel needs to participate and that requires more events.

Furthermore, the American Political System is driven by Congressional Districts and States. Candidates need to attend and participate in as many localities as feasible to engage the public first-hand.

There is no magic number, but this year, form follows function.

“Why are there so many presidential debates?

SCOTT AUDETTE/REUTERS - Republican presidential candidates former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) (L), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and U.S Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) (R) listen as, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

By Karen Tumulty, Published: January 25

In the lore of the U.S. political system, debates are among the most hallowed of rituals. From Lincoln-Douglas on, they have been the moments when voters are supposed to have an opportunity to get to know their candidates, contrast their ideas, evaluate their mettle.

But this campaign season, it might be fair to ask: Are Americans getting too much of a good thing?

By the end of the week, there will have been 19 debates among the GOP contenders for president. No other events have played so great a role in turning the party’s normally orderly process of picking a standard-bearer into a roller coaster ride.

“There’s no question that the debates have devolved into one part soap opera, one part reality TV, one part C-SPAN,” said Republican strategist Todd Harris.

Debates were the undoing of two once-promising candidates, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. They made front-runners, however briefly, of two otherwise unlikely ones, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive Herman Cain.

And without them, former House speakerNewt Gingrich would not have been able to resurrect his dying campaign, not once but twice.

The long season of debates has undoubtedly made the candidates familiar figures to many Americans, offering the willing viewer plenty of opportunity to absorb competing economic plans and various other positions.

One could argue that it has altered the balance of power a bit, shifting it away from the party establishment to an electorate apparently eager to engage: Ratings show the debates are drawing huge audiences.

But some worry that Republicans are putting too much emphasis on how well the candidates perform on a debating stage, something that might not matter all that much this fall.

“The general election is not going to be 17 debates. It is going to be three,” said Karl Rove, who was President George W. Bush’s top political adviser.

Gingrich has boasted that he would coerce President Obama into doing a series of unmoderated forums in the style made famous by Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas during their 1858 Illinois Senate race (which, incidentally, Douglas won).

Political veterans, however, are skeptical that Obama would agree to anything like that.

In 2000, Rove said, Bush attempted to get Vice President Al Gore to add a fourth, and he proposed that it be on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“We were kidding ourselves,” Rove said. “Al Gore’s campaign stiff-armed us, and the national media yawned.”

Rove is concerned that the amount of time that candidates are spending in debates and on preparing for them has taken away from other priorities, such as deepening their messages, broadening their appeal and building their organizations.

Worse, said former representative Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), a vice president at the Aspen Institute, “people aren’t thinking about the qualities it takes to be president. They’re thinking about who can give Obama a bloody nose.”

Because debates have been so crucial, other aspects of campaigning have become less so.”