Time to change traditional debates

During the first presidential debate Oct. 3, the candidates engaged in a sparring match of sound-bytes. But Wednesday's debate featured the candidates discussing issues in a more focused, serious manner. The only difference between the two debates was the format. This difference highlighted the need to change from the more traditional format.\nThe traditional format had the two candidates at podiums with a single moderator, Jim Lehrer. Under the rules, he asked a candidate a question, who then had two minutes to answer. Then, the opposing candidate had one minute for a rebuttal. Lehrer could allot an extra three and a half minutes at his discretion, although no response could exceed two minutes.\nOn Oct 3., while Lehrer prepared several well-thought-out, pertinent questions for the candidates, they chose not to debate them. Unfortunately, the candidates used their allotted time to briefly respond to the question, if acknowledging it at all, and then filled in the remainder with extraneous information about their policies and/or how they were better than the other candidate. \nVice President Al Gore started the trend from the outset. \nLehrer: "Vice President Gore, you have questioned whether (George W.) Bush has the experience to be president of the United States. What exactly do you mean?"\nGore: "I have not actually questioned Gov. Bush's experience, I have questioned his proposals." (Remainder of the two minutes packed with as many proposals and campaign promises as possible.)\nLehrer: Gov. Bush, one-minute rebuttal.\nBush: "We come from different places. I come from being a governor. We know how to set agendas as a governor." (Remainder of minute spent on a rebuttal filled with his policies.)\nThis kind of bickering and drifting from the question should not occur in a serious presidential debate. \nThe second debate was a stark contrast. This debate had both candidates seated face-to-face at a table with Lehrer moderating once again. This setting was intimate and informal. It allowed the candidates to have an open exchange of ideas. Lehrer had more control when questioning the candidates because it was harder to ignore the issue in such an intimate setting. The candidates were responsive to questions and were, for the most part, more focused on the issues and exchanging viewpoints. \nIt was to the point where they began to get into a discussion asking each other questions, which they had both previously agreed not to do. The new format actually led to a debate.\nThe Commission on Presidential Debates, the sponsor and producer of all presidential and vice presidential debates, needs to rethink the format of the debates to exclude situations that encourage the regurgitation of memorized sound-bytes. \nEven if the public is used to the standard podium format, it could be better.\nWednesday's presidential debate represented a vast improvement. Maybe it's time to scrap the classic podium debate and move toward more pressured debates where candidates are seated closely at a table, forced to confront the issues.\nStaff vote: 5 - 4 - 4\nOnline vote: 27 - 23 - 6