New Rules for Political Debates

I get really really annoyed when I watch political debates.  Politicians are super adept at avoiding questions and playing on sympathies and traditional thinking.  I’ve gathered that the key to successful political debating is making people feel good rather than saying anything that is true or makes sense.  No wonder we end up with such shitty candidates.  Watching the GOP debate, I though John Huntsman was the only person who actually gave real answers and no one took him serious for a second.  Mitt Romney is excellent at this.  I don’t think he has ever directly answered a question with facts.  When he does try to talk, he says things like “I like firing people” and “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”  Why do people like this man?

So, here is my proposal of new rules of political debates.  In my head, these rules will help force candidate to actually answer questions, thus telling us something about their plans for the office they are running for.
1. Candidates have only 150 words to answer each question.
Justification:   By giving them a word limit, candidates will be forced to get to the point, rather than talking around the issue.  Using less flowery, more straightforward language will also make their statements more understandable.  They have to say what they mean, which means we, the people, will understand what they mean.

2. The moderator may ask for further evidence for their claims.  In this case, they will receive another 150 words to cite evidence.
Justification:  Sometimes, with bigger issues, you need more evidence.  Evidence! Facts! Yay!

3. Points will be awarded for answers based on how comprehensible and logical they are.
Justification:  People should be able to detangle what politicians actually mean and their responses should be based on fact and reason.  Robert Heinlein believed that governments and people fail together when they get too caught up in ideological and value-based thinking, rather than looking at various possibilities that actually work.  Emotions block logical thinking.  Politicians play on emotion on purpose, because it stops people from thinking about actual issues.

4.  The winner of the debate will get some kind of special boost in the primary. (I don’t know what this would be yet)
Justification:  Candidates have to be motivated to win the debate and to be logical and comprehensible, or else they will continue to talk in circles and lie and act all gung ho about things that make no sense.

5.  Who will judge this you ask?  Why Spock of course!
Justification: Cold, logical, emotion-shaming Spock.  He’s badass.

6.  Spock is allowed to phaser those who give shitty answers.
Justification:  They deserve it

7.  A “dashboard” will be shown below candidates for whose watching on TV/Internet and on the big screen behind candidates for those in the audience.  The dashboard will include the word ticker, the Politi-Fact Truth-O-Meter, and will scroll the actual statistics of what they are talking about along the bottom.
Justification:  I realized there are issues with the Truth-O-Meter.  I disagree with it often; I think they give certain politicians a little more leeway in their judgement than others.  However, it is a good general tool.  It confronts the public on straight-out lies and, in this case, would keep politicians honest.  How awesome would it be to hear Gingrich talking about “blah blah, poor people are lazy, blah” and see the Truth-O-Meter on the big screen behind him being like “PANTS ON FIRE!” It’s a beautiful moment in my head.  Now, I don’t think this should be so damn difficult to get the meter and the stats, because we have the internet.  Hire a bunch of undergrad, or even grad, poly-sci majors and make them google their asses of during the debate!  

8.  Candidates will be held to a “5 God Limit.”
Justification:  I would prefer a “0 God Limit,” but I realize this is straight up no possible with out politicians.  They bring god into everything.   So, they will now be held to mentioning “God” 5 times.  Every time after that they get phasered.  Politicians justify everything using religion, even if it has nothing to do with religion.  This is yet another example of depending on emotion and tradition that makes me crazy.  Completely nonsensical legislation is passed every goddamn damn day with the justification of religion and tradition.  I’m sick of this.

That’s all I can think of right now.  Maybe I’ll think of more later.
I have this theory.  (I am a conspiracy theorist and proud of it.)  The US Government has made a deal to let our feel good prez have another term, for whatever reason.  So, they gathered the most un-electable gaggle of freaks in the Republican Party.  There is no possible way that Obama will lose the upcoming election. And, btws, I’m really not a big Obam fan.  But really?  Just look at the other options! Pa. The. Tic.


One Response to New Rules for Political Debates

  1. Unquestionably believe that that you stated. Your favourite reason seemed to be on the net the easiest factor to keep in mind of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed whilst other people consider worries that they plainly don’t recognize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest as neatly as defined out the entire thing with no need side-effects , other people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: