"Major candidates are complaining that too many states are planning too many debates too early."
What? Too many debates too early? That is the problem with modern politics. We don't have enough debates, soon enough. Also, we don't have the right type of debates.
No one wants to talk to each other; they would rather have their henchmen make 30 second TV commercials about each other. And the debates are not even real debates. They are just scripted formats for them to repeat their campaign slogans. It is a horse and pony show.
How do you tell when a politician is telling lies? His/her lips move. That is why we need to hook politicians onto lie detectors when they debate. If I was a politician I would wear a lie detector. Why should politicians have the right to lie to us? We have the technology to have them hooked up during a debate. You have to pass a lie detector test to go into the CIA, why not to become POTUS?
However, I wouldn't just have a standard lie detector, I would hook the bio-feedback outputs up to the computer that runs the audio and lighting in the debate hall, so it plays atonal experimental academic music and an eerie light show when the candidate is lying.
This will allow honest politicians (like Romney) to REALLY communicate – to really give people a detailed picture of their emotional process. This will make politicians into rock stars. Watching them will be much more entertaining, and educational. Once this becomes mainstream we can start to follow leaders who really say what they believe. There is new cat scan technology that makes lie-detection fool proof. Even the threat of lie detectors will stop people like Hillary from going into politics: like the threat of radar guns stop people from speeding.
If referees in the Super Bowl can use instant replay to ensure that what happens in an un-important (in the big scheme of things) football game, than the people of the United States need technology to help us make the most important decision of the planet's future: who should be the next POTUS.
This product would not be too difficult to make. If the dad in "Meet the Parents" could get a lie detector, I'm sure someone at one of these colleges could bring one by on the night of the debate.
At the very least we need to put the presidential candidates in some sort of "American Political Idle", or "Big Brother - 2008 President"... lock them up and see them duke it out for a week, not for an hour long debate.
Lincoln and Douglas had 7 debates. Each debate had this format: one candidate spoke for an hour and a half, then the other candidate spoke for two hours, and then the first candidate spoke for a half hour. The candidates alternated going first. That is 4 hours each debate, with 7 debates, and a total of 28 hours of debate, for just two candidates . If we only have 4 candidates for 2008, we will need a minimum of 56 hours of debate in order to have each candidate speak as much as Lincoln and Douglas. I will be suppried if there is 12 hours of debate, let alone (my miniumum of) 56. This was just for the Illinois senate seat. Our next election will determine the president of the most powerful country on the face of the planet, in a very difficult time. Much more complicated than 7 score and 9 years ago. The Baby Boomers will start to retire, the deficit will explode. We, as citizens, need to demand at least 56 hours of debate for the 2008 presidency, and everyone who wants to be president needs to show up for each debate. This is a Minimum. I think we also need lie detectors, and need to lock them all in the same building for a month straight, but that is just my opinion.
What do you think? What type of debate would you like to see? What kind of format should we use to determine the next president? What are your feelings about presidential debates? What could we do to improve them? Do you agree, that at a Minimum, we need to have 28 hours worth of debate between the candidates? Do we face more complex questions that Lincoln and Douglas faced when they were trying to be senators for Illinois?
~ Mike
