About Political Debates as Tournament Events
 |
|---|
People (and candidates) are disgusted by political debates today. What if they can be reformatted as tournament events?
Except as noted, all images are made using Excel 2007 with light edits made using MS Paint.
The Ancient Greeks had their styles of debates, as did the Romans.
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas 7 times over 56 days, with each debate lasting 3 hours.
In the recent past, televised debates (which came to include town halls) featured two or three candidates.
Since 2015, televised presidential debates in the United States came to resemble-- at best-- a clown show or-- at worst-- a freak show; for making this comparison, I apologize to the clowns and freaks.
Is there a way to make political debates not only fair to all candidates for public office but also entertaining for the voting public as well as a ratings bonanza for the television networks?
I propose political debate tournaments. One tournament will contain enough one-on-one debates to ensure that even candidates who exit immediately can get sufficient air time to present their cases. Two or three such tournaments can take place during the campaign season. If necessary, a tournament can be set up for the general election phase of the election cycle.
Candidates get air time and increased recognition, The voting public becomes better informed about all candidates. Even television networks benefit from hype surrounding the debate tournaments. The concept is explained in greater detail below.
TL;DR
- Tournaments in Sports
- Debates for Public Office
- When They Work Well
- Flaws When They Don't
- Proposed Solution
- Examples from Sports
- Major League Baseball
Game 163 - NCAA College Basketball
Play-in Game for Slot 64 - National Football League
First Round Bye
- Major League Baseball
- Why Use the Tournament Format for Debates?
- Air Time
- Fairness
- Ratings on Hitting a Winning Event
- Basic Principle: Use Powers of 2
- Case Studies
1️⃣ 2016 Republican Primaries
+ Potential Debate Matchups
2️⃣ 2020 Democrat Primaries
+ Potential Debate Matchups
+ The Television Side of the Tournament
3️⃣ 2024 Republican Primaries
+ Potential Debate Matchups
+ Tournament with No Trump
+ The Television Side of the Tournament - Debate Tournaments for the General Election
- Just My Two Sats
Tournaments in Sports
The annual NCAA college basketball tournament which starts in April after March Madness used to begin with 64 teams. In recent years extra tournament slots were added, thus making necessary the play-in game to reduce the field back to 64 teams.
For a long time, the FIFA World Cup-- technically, The Finals-- had slots for 16 teams. Recent World Cups had 32 slots. Future World Cups may have even more slots.
Many other tournaments and formats for them exist, but they have two things in common:
- They work best when the number of slots is a power of 2 (64, 32, 16, 8, 4, or even just 2 as Major League Baseball had until the late 1960s); and
- They take place over a long time.
Despite taking a long time to play out, tournaments generate plenty of interest even among people ignorant of the sport or past time.
Debates for Public Office
Since at least 2015, the trend in the United States has been for insane numbers of people to declare themselves candidates for their political party's nomination for the general election. Even debates have an insane number of qualifying participants from the pool of declared candidates.
We can safely make at least 2 observations about the way debates with many participants are handled here:
When They Work Well
They work well when the number of participants is 4 or less. The ideal debate has 2 participants, but on occasion there could be a 3rd or even 4th participant. Even with reduced speaking time, each candidate has enough time to present to the viewers the best possible case for earning their votes.
Flaws When They Don't Work Well
Although the number of debate participants as ballooned, time allotted for the debate is fixed at 2 hours. As it is, each debate participant is lucky to get 10 minutes of speaking time. A few will get that. A couple will get more minutes due to debate rules.
A couple of debaters, sadly, will get less minutes through no fault of their own. Then when they try to get more minutes at the next debate they are treated like naughty school children for doing so.
They get cheated out of an opportunity to present what could potentially be the best case for an issue. The viewers get cheated out of much-needed information for their decision making come Election Day. Even the media presenting the debate event is cheated because it's just too awkward handling so many participants.
Proposed Solution
Rather than have monthly 2-hour debates featuring many candidates (and the problems noted earlier), why not have 2 or 3 tournaments during the 6 to 12 months before the start of election season?
As much as we want our politics to be free of spectacle so that we can "focus on the issues," our times simply won't permit that. So why not take advantage of existing conditions to attract buzz to the debate tournament?
Consider these situations from sports:
Major League Baseball and Game 163
Since the 1960s, the Major League Baseball season had 162 games. For most teams, 162 games is enough. Occasionally, two teams in a division finish the season with identical records. Only one of these teams can advance into the post-season. So they play Game 163. One team gets the privilege of playing at least 3 more games. One team begins its off-season with the other teams.
The season boils down to one game, and a lot is at stake without even starting the playoffs. Records could be tied or set. New leaders rise. Legacies are begun (or ended).
Just for one game.
NCAA College Basketball Play-in Game for Slot 64
For much of the modern era, the NCAA College Basketball tournament featured exactly 64 teams. Then the National Collegiate Athletic Association decided to add a 65th team, and this team would play the 64th team for the privilege to enter the tournament.
With 64 teams in the tournament, that can feature days with multiple games to watch.
Part of the appeal of the NCAA College Basketball tournament is the chance to witness upsets and the progress of Cinderella teams with a chance to win it all. Who doesn't want to see an underdog win, or a hated team get sent home earlier than expected?
National Football League and its First Round Bye
Most sports leagues have playoff tournaments featuring the right number of teams; usually 64, 32, or 16. These numbers lend themselves to easy organization of later rounds.
Then NFL had to be different and go with 12 teams, 6 in each conference.
This was a strange number for a playoff tournament, but it was also an opportunity for some players, the teams, the league, and the television networks to earn extra money. So the odd format has stayed ever since.
The innovation The NFL added to its playoff tournament was the addition of the First Round Bye. The Top 2 teams in each conference had the first round off while the other 4 teams in each conference had to play.
With an extra week to plan for the playoffs-- or to heal from the beatings of the regular season-- the First Round winners would play the Bye teams. At this point, the number or teams made sense for the rest of the playoffs.
Why Use the Tournament Format for Debates?
Sports fans look forward to tournaments and even the qualifiers. They get a chance to witness history in real-time. They can place bets on who wins or on what happens. It's a good way to break the ice at work when meeting new people.
So why use a tournament format for something as "boring" as a political debate? Let's consider 3 reasons.
1. Air Time
When debates featured just 2 people over 2 hours, each candidate would have maybe 40 to 50 minutes of talk time. Even a debate with 3 candidates would let each candidate have 30-40 minutes of talk time.
With 8 candidates on the debate stage, time on air can range from 8 to 12 minutes. Even the candidates who rank at the top for air time are under the gun to make their points (never mind give the quote of the night).
Make each debate a 2-person event, and each participant can be assured of at least 40 minutes of air time; moderators and sponsors need their time, too. Even if a debater is cheated out of air time, there is more time under the tournament format for the loser than there is under the current format where a debater ends up with 8 minutes at worst.
2. Fairness
Who wants to spend a 2-hour debate looking like a lamp post? Who wants to see certain debaters hog all the air time at the expense of everyone else? What network wants to get bad reviews for they way its people handled the debate?
With 2 people per debate, even a one-hour debate can give each candidate 20 minutes of air time. That's better than what we get-- what they get-- today. Keep debates at 2 hours, and both debaters can make their points while hurling rhetorical haymakers at each other.
The audience also gets to learn things about the debaters it never knew before. The domestic policy wonk also knows about geopolitics. The foreign policy maven knows dollars and cents. The firebrand can debate with the best of them. The front-runner in polling is either a post turtle or all hat, no cattle. Details like this don't reveal themselves under existing debate formats.
On the moderator side, more questions get asked. The audience gets to see how biased or fair the moderators are. They also get to see biased moderators who can put the bias aside for at least one day. With more debates under the tournament format, more opportunities become available to up-and-coming presenters and personalities.
3. Ratings on Hitting a Winning Event
Just as sports tournaments have their share of upsets and moments, so do political debates. Even the most boring matchup can produce its share of sparks. Polished debaters run circles around each other. A careless debater gets posterized. Brawlers throw all they have at each other. In some debates, not even the moderators are safe.
Things happen which can generate lots of buzz. This gets people to tune in. This also gives people a reason to watch the next debate and the one after that.
When the right pair of people meet in a debate, anything can happen. As the saying goes, a star is born. Or a heel finally gets taken out. Or the roles reverse. While some debates (like games) end up being snooze-fests, people tune in for the potential for drama.
Basic Principle: Use Powers of 2
The NCAA College Basketball tournament may be the best example of this principle. For much of its history, it had 64 teams each year. 64 drops to the Round 32, then to the Sweet 16, then to the Elite 8, then to the Final 4, then to Championship 2. 64 equals (2^6), which equals 26.
Who wants to deal with numbers such as 24 or 48? Or-- even worse-- 29 or 13? Then it requires gimmicks to reach a power of 2.
If crooked numbers must be used, then the first round is used to handle them. If necessary, a qualifying event is introduced to gain entry into the tournament.
Case Studies
How would a political debate tournament look in real life? Since the trend in recent years has been to have an unwieldy number of candidates for their party's nomination for the general election, let's see how a tournament format could have been employed.
(Rankings are presented for the purpose of the case studies. They will differ from actual rankings which took place ahead of actual debates.)
Case Study 1️⃣: 2016 Republican Primaries
Highlights:
- 17 declared candidates
- A Round 0 Qualifying Event (QE)
- Four rounds of debates
- 15 debates total (1 QE plus 14 tournament debates)
 |
|---|
| Figure 1: 1 Qualifying Event to determine Slot 16 in the Debate Tournament |
These were the 17 declared Republican candidates for their party's nomination:
| Rank | Participant | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Donald Trump | v. Winner of Round 0 QE |
| 2 | John Kasich | v. 15 |
| 3 | Ted Cruz | v. 14 |
| 4 | Marco Rubio | v. 13 |
| 5 | Ben Carson | v. 12 |
| 6 | Jeb Bush | v. 11 |
| 7 | Chris Christie | v. 10 |
| 8 | Carly Fiorina | v. 9 |
| 9 | Rick Santorum | v. 8 |
| 10 | Rand Paul | v. 7 |
| 11 | Mike Huckabee | v. 6 |
| 12 | Lindsey Graham | v. 5 |
| 13 | Bobby Jindal | v. 4 |
| 14 | Scott Walker | v. 3 |
| 15 | Rick Perry | v. 2 |
| 16 | Jim Gilmore | Round 0 Qualifying Event |
| 17 | George Pataki | Round 0 Qualifying Event |
As shown in Figure 1, 17 is just 1 more than 16, so a QE is needed to see who gets the privilege of entering the debate tournament; think Game 163 in Major League Baseball.
Few people, if any, knew that Jim Gilmore was a candidate for President that year. Just as few people knew that George Pataki, former governor of New York State, was also a candidate. Both candidates could have benefited from a two-hour debate between them to present themselves to a nationwide audience and to state their cases.
Given the way the polls were at the time, the winner of the QE would have have the privilege of facing Donald Trump in Round 1. While an upset would have been possible, more likely would have been a beat-down by the brawler.
From there, the rest of this tournament would have been just the Power of 2 principle in action.
This tournament has 15 debates, so it could have taken place within 1 week, or 2 weeks, or 1 month. With one month off, a 2nd tournament could take place. This means 3 debate tournaments could have taken place, and even the losers of each QE would have gotten substantial air time.
Would Donald Trump have survived to finish the tournament as the winner? Would someone else have come out victorious in the end? We will never know.
Had the field contained 15 rather than 17 declared candidates, then the tournament would have been much more difficult to set up. Figure 2 in the next case study shows what happens when the numbers are really crooked.
Potential Debate Matchups
Suppose prohibitive favorite Donald Trump reaches the Final Debate (Round 4, [M] v. [N]). N is the winner of Round 3 matchup [J] v. [K]. [J] is the winner of Round 2 matchup [B] v. [G], and [K] is the winner of Round 2 matchup [C] v. [F]. The small table below shows who the relevant participants are in Round 1:
| Round 1 Matchup | Rank | Participant |
|---|---|---|
| B | 2 | John Kasich |
| B | 15 | Rick Perry |
| G | 7 | Chris Christie |
| G | 10 | Rand Paul |
| C | 3 | Ted Cruz |
| C | 14 | Scott Walker |
| F | 6 | Jeb Bush |
| F | 11 | Mike Huckabee |
Imagine these Final Debate scenarios:
- Trump and Chris Christie throwing haymakers at each from start to finish;
- Trump and Ted Cruz ending their bromance with insults about each other's wives;
- Trump going scorched earth against Bush dynasty representative Jeb!;
- Rand Paul educating Trump on world events not covered by gatekeeper media;
- Mike Huckabee trying to disarm Trump before making the quote of the night;
- Babyface John Kasich making his heel turn once the Final Debate starts.
Of course, either Jim Gilmore or George Pataki from the QE could upset Trump and throw the entire tournament into disarray. Then it's anyone's tournament, and who knows what other madness can take place. This is why people follow tournaments.
Case Study 2️⃣: 2020 Democrat Primaries
Highlights:
- 29 declared candidates
- 5 Round 0 Qualifying Events (QE) to determine Slots 20 through 24
- 8 First Round Byes
- 5 rounds debates
- 27 debates total (5 QE's, 8 Round 1 debates, 8 Round 2 debates, 4 Round 3, 2 Round 4 debates, and 1 Round 5 debate)
 |
|---|
| Figure 2: 5 Round 0 Qualifying Events to determine Slots 20-24; top 8 participants have a First Round Bye; unboxed letter represents debate matchup; boxed letter represents Winner of debate matchup |
These were the 29 declared Democrat candidates for their party's nomination:
| Rank | Participant | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Joe Biden | Round 1 Bye |
| 2 | Bernie Sanders | Round 1 Bye |
| 3 | Tulsi Gabbard | Round 1 Bye |
| 4 | Elizabeth Warren | Round 1 Bye |
| 5 | Michael Bloomberg | Round 1 Bye |
| 6 | Amy Klobuchar | Round 1 Bye |
| 7 | Pete Buttigieg | Round 1 Bye |
| 8 | Tom Steyer | Round 1 Bye |
| 9 | Deval Patrick | v. 19 |
| 10 | Michael Bennett | v. 18 |
| 11 | Andrew Yang | v. 17 |
| 12 | John Delaney | v. 16 |
| 13 | Cory Booker | v. 15 |
| 14 | Marianne Williamson | v. 14 |
| 15 | Julian Castro | v. 13 |
| 16 | Kamala Harris | v. 12 |
| 17 | Tim Ryan | v. 11 |
| 18 | Kirsten Gillibrand | v. 10 |
| 19 | John Hickenlooper | v. 9 |
| 20 | Robert Francis O'Rourke | Round 0 QE A (v. 29) |
| 21 | Steve Bullock | Round 0 QE B (v. 28) |
| 22 | Bill DeBlasio | Round 0 QE C (v. 27) |
| 23 | Joe Sestak | Round 0 QE D (v. 26) |
| 24 | Seth Moulton | Round 0 QE E (v. 25) |
| 25 | Jay Inslee | Round 0 QE E (v. 24) |
| 26 | Wayne Messam | Round 0 QE D (v. 23) |
| 27 | Mike Gravel | Round 0 QE C (v. 22) |
| 28 | Eric Swalwell | Round 0 QE B (v. 21) |
| 29 | Richard Ojeda | Round 0 QE A (v. 20) |
Figure 2 shows what needs to happen for this debate tournament to take place. 29 is 3 less than 32, so 5 QE's are needed to see who gets the privilege of entering the debate tournament; once again, think Game 163 in Major League Baseball only multiple times (which happens in MLB, too).
For the 5 QE's, some candidates have a good level of name recognition (for example, New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio) while others are virtually unknown except to a few people (for example, Richard Ojeda). Could the better-known candidates qualify as expected? Could a virtually unknown candidate pull an upset and qualify? It's another reason why people follow tournaments.
Once the 5 QE's are done, Round 1 will feature middle-tier candidates since the top 8 candidates earned a bye thanks to their polling numbers. Instead of Round 2 having 4 debates, it will have 8 debates once the bye-candidates debate for the first time in the tournament. Only in Round 2 is will the familiar structure of 16-8-4-2 take place.
By the time Round 1 is over, the national audience will have become familiar with the lesser known candidates. Whether the national audience leaves the debate impressed or shrugging or apathetic is another matter.
With a debate tournament such as this, would the eventual winner still be Joe Biden? Would Bernie Sanders have been able to meet Michael Bloomberg in Round 4? Would Tulsi Gabbard have been able to knock out more candidates besides Kamala Harris? None of us can say, but the tournament format allows for these scenarios to be considered.
Potential Debate Matchups
Could Bernie Sanders knock off Joe Biden? Let's see if this would be possible.
Joe Biden is ranked 1. Bernie Sanders is ranked 2. Starting from the Final Debate, we backtrack until we reach [1] and [2].
The [Finale Debate] (Round 5) is a matchup of the Winner of {Z} v. Winner of {AA}. Using shorthand, the following statement is equivalent:
- [FD] = (R5) w{Z} v. w{AA}
Using the shorthand established above, this is the chain of events leading up to that Final Debate matchup:
- [Z] = (R4) w{V} v. w{Y}
- [AA] = (R4) w{W} v. w{X}
- [V] = (R3) w{N} v. w{U}
- [Y] = (R3) w{R} v. w{S}
- [W] = (R3) w{O} v. w{T}
- [X] = (R3) w{P} v. w{Q}
- [N] = (R2) 1 v. w{M}
- [U] = (R2) 8 v. w{F}
- [R] = (R2) 5 v. w{I}
- [S] = (R2) 6 v. w{H}
- [O] = (R2) 2 v. w{L}
- [T] = (R2) 7 v. w{G}
- [P] = (R2) 3 v. w{K}
- [Q] = (R2) 4 v. w{J}
Thanks to their First Round Byes, we see Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders making their tournament debuts in Round 2.
This is Joe Biden's road to victory:
- First Round Bye
- Joe Biden's first debate is in matchup [N].
- He wins [N] to advance to matchup [V] in Round 3.
- He wins [V] to advance to matchup [Z] in Round 4.
- Then he wins [Z] to advance to [Final Debate] in Round 5.
This is Bernie Sanders' road to victory:
- First Round Bye
- Joe Biden's first debate is in matchup [O].
- He wins [O] to advance to matchup [W] in Round 3.
- He wins [W] to advance to matchup [AA] in Round 4.
- Then he wins [AA] to advance to [Final Debate] in Round 5.
Numerous candidates with very low name recognition would benefit from the debate tournament even if they fail to qualify for the tournament. They would also have 1 or 2 more tournaments in which to pull off upsets or at least gain more recognition in losing efforts. More importantly, they would have substantial opportunities to get their messages across.
The Television Side of the Tournament
With 27 total debates, including the 5 QE's, there is no way television networks would devote 2-hours a night every night over 27 to 31 evenings in one month.
Could multiple networks air debates simultaneously? That's possible, and that's what's done for events such as the Olympic Games.
Could there be dates with 2 or even 3 debates taking place in one day? That would be more likely.
Will there be duds or blowouts or snooze-fests among these 27 debates? Very likely, but that happens in sports tournaments, too.
Even with this massive field of candidates, there could be two or even three such tournaments before the primaries take place. Or there could be two before and one during. For each tournament, the number of participants would change (especially for the one during the primaries).
Case study 2 presents what would be the worst-case scenario for a debate tournament because its crooked numbers require added complexity. Even the NFL simplifies this complexity by capping its playoff slots at 12. The NCAA College Basketball tournament (men's and women's) may have 64-68 teams vying for the Ultimate Prize, but its tournament structure is actually simple.
Case Study [3]: 2024 Republican Primaries
Highlights:
- 13 12 declared candidates
- A Round 0 Qualifying Event (QE) As of 2023-October-11, Will Hurd is no longer a candidate
- 4 First Round Byes
- 4 rounds of debates
- 12 11 debates total (1 QE plus 11 tournament debates)
 |
|---|
| Figure 3: An NFL-type tournament format which included a Round 0 Qualifying Event (no longer needed since as of 2023-October-11, Will Hurd is no longer a candidate) |
These were the 13 declared Republican candidates for their party's nomination:
| Rank | Participant | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Donald Trump | Round 1 Bye |
| 2 | Ron DeSantis | Round 1 Bye |
| 3 | Vivek Ramaswamy | Round 1 Bye |
| 4 | Nikki Hayley | Round 1 Bye |
| 5 | Tim Scott | v. Winner of Round 0 QE |
| 6 | Chris Christie | v. 11 |
| 7 | Mike Pence | v. 10 |
| 8 | Doug Burgum | v. 9 |
| 9 | Asa Hutchinson | v. 8 |
| 10 | Larry Elder | v. 7 |
| 11 | Perry Johnson | v. 6 |
| 12 | Will Hurd | Round 0 Qualifying Event |
| 13 | Ryan Binkley | Round 0 Qualifying Event |
As shown in Figure 3, 13 is 3 less than 16, so 1 QE's are needed to see who gets the privilege of entering the debate tournament. Once the field of candidates is reduced to 12, an NFL-type playoff format is used for the debate tournament.
| UPDATE-- |
|---|
| While preparing this post, there were 13 Republican candidates. As of 2023-October-11, Will Hurd is no longer a candidate. This means that Ryan Binkley gains automatic entry into the debate tournament, so the Round 0 Qualifying Event is no longer needed. |
Note that this case study assumes that Donald Trump, the front-runner by polling margins of 30% to 40% in real life, participates. In the case of the debate tournament missing Donald Trump, then a pure NFL-type playoff format is used without the Round 0 Qualifying Event.
Potential Debate Matchups
(All matchups assume 13 candidates.)
Can radio personality and recall candidate for Governor of California Larry Elder (ranked 10) beat billionaire Perry Johnson (ranked 11)?
Both candidates are required to participate in Round 1:
[C] = 7 (Mike Pence) versus 10 (Larry Elder);
[B] = 6 (Chris Christie) versus 11 (Perry Johnson).
Elder wins [C] to advance to matchup [F] in Round 2, where he debates Ron DeSantis (ranked 2). In a major upset, Elder defeats DeSantis to advance to matchup [J] in Round 3.
Johnson wins [B], but not before going wise guy to wise guy versus Chris Christie. Johnson advances to matchup [G] in Round 2, where he debates up-and-coming babyface candidate Vivek Ramaswamy in a face of billionaire CEO versus multi-millionaire CEO. After an entertaining and informative debate, Johnson wins [G] to advance to matchup [J] in Round 3.
The Elder v. Johnson matchup will take place in Round 3 instead of the [Final Debate] in Round 4.
Tournament with No Trump
(This assumes 13 candidates.)
If (as in real life) Donald Trump skips this debate tournament, things get simplified. The debate tournament has 12 participants, so no Round 0 Qualifying Event is needed. Ryan Binkley gets to participate (and Will Hurd would have been able to participate had he not ended his candidacy on 2023-October-11). For tournament purposes, all candidates advance in rank by 1, so Ron DeSantis gets ranked 1 and Ryan Binkley gets ranked 12. The rest of the tournament takes place as before.
| UPDATE-- |
|---|
| With Will Hurd no longer a candidate, this means that an absence by Donald Trump brings the tournament field down to 11, another crooked number. To restore balance, 3 Round 0 Qualifying events would be needed to determine Slots 6, 7, and 8. |
In this revised scenario, Larry Elder is ranked 9 and Perry Johnson is ranked 10. This time, they face off in Round 4 for the Final Debate.
The Television Side of the Tournament
After two debates this campaign season, television ratings in 2023 are down a third from what they were in 2015. Ratings for the 2nd debate were less than for the 1st debate.
Candidates people expected to hear from more (such as Senator Tim Scott) ended up sharing air time with crickets (along with as former Arkansas governor and former DEA Director Asa Hutchinson and North Dakota governor Doug Burgum).
Meanwhile, more entertaining candidates such as radio personality Larry Elder and billionaire Perry Johnson were excluded because of qualifiers put in place by the Republican National Committee.
In the proposed debate tournament, all candidates would have at least 40 minutes of air time in the case of the candidate who loses in the QE.
While the debate tournament would also suffer from the absence of a candidate such as Donald Trump, it could make up for it by letting candidates not only present their visions for the nation but also confront each other head-to head.
In the event Donald Trump participates, viewers can anticipate a head-to-head matchup against his vice president, Mike Pence, in the Final Debate. This matchup could rival the 2016 general election debates Trump had with Democrat candidate Hilary Clinton, and that was great television even if the candidates themselves were hated.
Debate Tournaments for the General Election
Contrary to what American gatekeeper corporate legacy media wants us to think, there are several national political parties. If you doubt this, just look at the ballot in the voting booth.
Once each party has its nominee for office, a debate tournament can be set up for all nominee. They get the same treatment as noted in the above case studies. Ratings may actually be better for this tournament because the voting public is hungry for new options.
Although the end result may still be a Democrat versus a Republican, imagine a Final Debate featuring a Democrat versus a Libertarian, or a Republican versus a Green Party nominee. Upsets happen, so imagine a Final Debate featuring a Libertarian versus a Communist.
Even if a debate tournament won't happen for a nationwide election, it can be done at the state and local levels. These elections are in even more dire need of a debate tournament than elections for President of the United States. If you live in places such as New York City, Chicago, or San Francisco (or their respective states), you can see the value of having debate tournaments for public offices which affect you more directly.
If you live outside the United States, then you can adjust the debate tournament idea to fit your political environment or circumstances. How a debate tournament would work within a parliamentary system is beyond the scope of this post, but perhaps there is it not needed; I can't say.
Just My Two Sats
It's one thing to have televised debates in a way which accommodates the brief attention spans of the current population of voters. It's another thing for the debates to be handled in ways which are a disservice to not just the voting public but also to the debate participants. It's a lose-Lose-LOSE scenario for the vast majority of people, and we deserve better.
While we can criticize the culture for reaching the point where we have train wrecks disguised as political debates, where candidates are considered loquacious if they speak for 12 minutes, and where the voting public would rather watch reruns of Fantasy Island, we have what we have.
Source: Tenor.com
"Are you not entertained?"
No, we are not. In fact, we're annoyed.
Since we have what we have, we may as well get the most and best we can out of the situation. Tournaments can be a way to remedy that sad state of affairs in public service programming. Tournaments manage to capture the attention of not only fans but also casual observers of events.
Tournaments offer all candidates-- regardless of poll numbers-- an opportunity to present themselves to a wide audience even if it is only for one debate. All candidates get ample opportunity to state their cases.
Just as with the NCAA College Basketball tournament, there are occasional upsets, blowouts, and marquee matchups. Unexpected moments take place such as two "boring" candidates getting into a shouting match, or two people who despise each other agreeing on a common point.
The tournament format for debates is also good for the television networks which have been hemorrhaging viewers in recent years. They can hype up the events to add drama, they can create stories around the tournament, and they can even serve as opportunities to up-and-coming television journalists and personalities.
When we can have debates featuring 2 candidates (maybe 3 or even 4), then we can stick with the traditional televised formats. As long as the pool of candidates is large enough to field both sides of a futbol match, we will need the tournament format.
Many people will call this idea insane or a sign of the rot we have in civic culture today. I prefer to think of this idea as visionary and capitalizing on existing trends. What do you think?
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Source: Tenor.com
"Are you not entertained?"
No, we are not. In fact, we're annoyed.
Since we have what we have, we may as well get the most and best we can out of the situation. Tournaments can be a way to remedy that sad state of affairs in public service programming. Tournaments manage to capture the attention of not only fans but also casual observers of events.
Tournaments offer all candidates-- regardless of poll numbers-- an opportunity to present themselves to a wide audience even if it is only for one debate. All candidates get ample opportunity to state their cases.
Just as with the NCAA College Basketball tournament, there are occasional upsets, blowouts, and marquee matchups. Unexpected moments take place such as two "boring" candidates getting into a shouting match, or two people who despise each other agreeing on a common point.
The tournament format for debates is also good for the television networks which have been hemorrhaging viewers in recent years. They can hype up the events to add drama, they can create stories around the tournament, and they can even serve as opportunities to up-and-coming television journalists and personalities.
When we can have debates featuring 2 candidates (maybe 3 or even 4), then we can stick with the traditional televised formats. As long as the pool of candidates is large enough to field both sides of a futbol match, we will need the tournament format.
Many people will call this idea insane or a sign of the rot we have in civic culture today. I prefer to think of this idea as visionary and capitalizing on existing trends. What do you think?
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Posted Using InLeo Alpha