• Home
  • Illinois News
  • Illinois Politics
  • US Politics
  • US NEWS
  • America First
  • Opinion
  • World News
  • Second Amendment
Saturday, September 20, 2025
Illinois Review
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Illinois News
  • Illinois Politics
  • US Politics
  • US NEWS
  • America First
  • Opinion
  • World News
  • Second Amendment
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Illinois News
  • Illinois Politics
  • US Politics
  • US NEWS
  • America First
  • Opinion
  • World News
  • Second Amendment
No Result
View All Result
Illinois Review
No Result
View All Result
Home Illinois News

Morris: A modest proposal about presidential debates

Illinois Review by Illinois Review
October 27, 2022
in Illinois News
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
0
26
SHARES
435
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

A MODEST PROPOSAL ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
By Joseph A. Morris

The first Presidential debate of 2020 was built around the needs and desires of journalists, campaign staffers, and partisan spinners, not around the needs of the voters — or, frankly, of the candidates. We can do better.

I am rather exhausted after watching tonight's Presidential debate.

As a very active debater in high school and college, and later the debate coach at The University of Chicago, I am annoyed that these events are even called "debates." They are actually poorly-controlled joint news conferences. 

Any time real debate is joined, let alone any time a genuine clash of issues arises, the rules compel the moderator (or the moderator feels compelled) to quash it.  Tonight's experience was mostly that of listening to three men talking over each other. I would prefer it if a real debate format were adopted.

For example, imagine if one candidate were given 30 minutes for an opening speech;  the opponent were given 40 minutes for a combined opening speech and rebuttal;  and then the first candidate were given 10 minutes for rebuttal.  No interruptions and no overtime would be allowed;  when one candidate had the floor, the other candidate's microphone would be off, and each speaker's microphone would go dead at end of the allotted speaking time.  There would be no duty to use all the time to which one was entitled;  and no unused time would go to the opponent.  If the debate finished ahead of schedule, the talking heads in the studio would have to fill the rest of the network' programmed time;  they'd find a way.

Under such a regime, each candidate would have to decide which issues were worthy of discussion;  in what order to present them;  into how much detail to delve;  how flowery or businesslike the oratory should be;  and what issues should be ignored.  If a candidate finished in less time than slotted, the public could decide whether or not to reward economy of thought and speech or to punish failure to address topics adequately or at all.

Listeners could judge for themselves if a speaker's choice of issues addressed the public's priorities, and if the speaker's arguments held water.  If a speaker were a gas bag, droning on for too long just because there was time available, that would be instructive, too.  If a speaker ignored the opponent's most important and salient points, that would also be subjected to the judgment of the viewers.

Perhaps such a format — similar to, although fully half an hour shorter than, the format of the debates that riveted the attention of simple Illinois prairie-dwellers in 1858, when Lincoln and Douglas debated — would fail to hold the attention of moderns with short attention spans.

Very well, the format could be modified and enlivened.  It could be made more entertaining at the price of requiring more work and nimbleness on the parts of the candidates.  Even so, we could have lively but true debates without intrusive moderators controlling the substantive agenda.

For example, Candidate A and Candidate B could each have 15 minutes for an opening.  Then Candidate B would be given a minute to ask a question or questions of Candidate A;  and Candidate A would be given 2 minutes to answer the questions.  Then the roles of questioner and answerer would be reversed, and Candidate A would be given 1 minute to put a question or  questions to Candidate B.

After this first round of opening speeches and Qs and As, there would be another round, with the speaking and questioning orders reversed, of 15-minute statements, 1-minute question periods, and 2-minute answer periods.  That could go one for another two rounds, for a total of four rounds in all, and would conclude with 5-minute closing statements by each candidate.  That format would come in at just under 90 minutes, which was the length of the first Presidential debate of the 2020 cycle.

Once again, choice of issues and the form of presentation would be entirely up to each candidate during the speeches.  The questions would be chosen, and would be propounded, by the candidates themselves.  The public could judge the candidates on their choice and prioritization of issues.  Even better, the public could decide if the candidates, and not the moderator, asked the questions they wanted to hear.  Viewers would also evaluate the validity, relevance to national concerns, insightfulness, and fairness of their questions as well as on the soundness of their respective answers.  Some questions might be surprises, even "gotcha" questions.  Voters would decide if the questions, no less than the answers, reflected well, not on the journalist-moderator but on the candidate-questioner.

The moderator would be relieved of playing boxing referee.  The nation would learn what issues and what questions were thought important, not to the debate moderator, but to the candidates.  And if the candidates were wise, witty, well-informed, courteous, pugnacious when appropriate, capable of good time-management, and to-the-point — or not — voters could judge for themselves.

More true debate, I say, and less staged pugilism.  The moderators should explain the rules, introduce the debaters, call time, and nothing else.

The first Presidential debate of 2020 was built around the needs and desires of journalists, campaign staffers, and partisan spinners, not around the needs of the voters — or, frankly, of the candidates.

We can do better.

ARTICLE TAGS

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

You might also like

Exclusive: Parents Elevate Twin Groves Middle School Teacher Controversy to The White House

Opinion: Divide and Conquer – The Left’s Desperate Strategy After Charlie Kirk’s Death

Twin Groves Middle School Teacher Faces Backlash for Routine Inflammatory Social Media Posts as Parents Pull Children from Class

AUTHOR
jmorris-95
Joseph A. Morris
Joseph A. Morris is the president of The Lincoln Legal Foundation and the chairman of The Heartland Institute Board of Directors.
Full Bio

[email protected]

 
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/a-modest-proposal-about-presidential-debates 

Related

Share10Tweet7
Previous Post

Fair tax will fix all that ails Illinois? Illinois Policy’s response

Next Post

Chicago Public Schools push racial sensitivity

Illinois Review

Illinois Review

Founded in 2005, Illinois Review is the leading perspective and source of conservative news, opinion and information in Illinois. Follow Illinois Review on X at @IllinoisReview.

Recommended For You

Exclusive: Parents Elevate Twin Groves Middle School Teacher Controversy to The White House

by Illinois Review
September 19, 2025
0
Exclusive: Parents Elevate Twin Groves Middle School Teacher Controversy to The White House

By Illinois ReviewParents at Twin Groves Middle School in Buffalo Grove are raising alarms over a teacher’s political extremism — concerns they say extend far beyond the classroom...

Read moreDetails

Opinion: Divide and Conquer – The Left’s Desperate Strategy After Charlie Kirk’s Death

by John F. Di Leo
September 19, 2025
0
Opinion: Divide and Conquer – The Left’s Desperate Strategy After Charlie Kirk’s Death

By John F. Di Leo, Opinion Contributor How do you defeat an enemy? If you have numbers, you can overwhelm your enemy with numbers. If you have power,...

Read moreDetails

Twin Groves Middle School Teacher Faces Backlash for Routine Inflammatory Social Media Posts as Parents Pull Children from Class

by Illinois Review
September 18, 2025
0
Twin Groves Middle School Teacher Faces Backlash for Routine Inflammatory Social Media Posts as Parents Pull Children from Class

By Illinois ReviewA Twin Groves Middle School teacher is facing mounting backlash as parents move to pull their children from her class over routine inflammatory social media posts.Carolyn...

Read moreDetails

Opinion: Chicago Fire Department’s Woke Circus Is Out of Control

by Janelle Powell
September 18, 2025
0
Opinion: Chicago Fire Department’s Woke Circus Is Out of Control

By Janelle Powell, Opinion ContributorWhile Chicago burns, Chicago Fire Department leadership plays politics – defying Trump’s orders, dishonoring the flag, and turning a once-proud department into a political...

Read moreDetails

Local Family Goes Viral After Starbucks Writes “Loser” on Charlie Kirk’s Favorite Drink; Company Issues Statement

by Illinois Review
September 18, 2025
0
Local Family Goes Viral After Starbucks Writes “Loser” on Charlie Kirk’s Favorite Drink; Company Issues Statement

By Illinois ReviewA Chicagoland family’s Starbucks run went viral after their order of Charlie Kirk’s favorite drink was handed back with the word “Loser” scrawled on the cup...

Read moreDetails
Next Post

Chicago Public Schools push racial sensitivity

Please login to join discussion

Best Dental Group

Related News

IL Freedom Caucus calls on Lurie Children’s Hospital to cease gender services for kids

October 27, 2022

Beckman: Is the Brigham Young University racial slur controversy another hoax?

October 27, 2022

Salvi polling shows closer race

October 27, 2022

Browse by Category

  • America First
  • Education
  • Faith & Family
  • Foreign Policy
  • Health Care
  • Illinois News
  • Illinois Politics
  • Opinion
  • Science
  • Second Amendment
  • TRENDING
  • US NEWS
  • US Politics
  • World News
Illinois Review

llinois Review LLC Editor-in-Chief Mark Vargas General Counsel Scott Kaspar Copyright © 2025 IR Media Corp., all rights reserved.

Navigate Site

  • Checkout
  • Home
  • Home – mobile
  • Login/Register
  • Login/Register
  • My account
  • My Account-
  • My Account- – mobile

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Illinois News
  • Illinois Politics
  • US Politics
  • Health Care
  • US NEWS
  • America First
  • Opinion
  • TRENDING
  • Education
  • Foreign Policy
  • Second Amendment
  • Faith & Family
  • Science
  • World News

llinois Review LLC Editor-in-Chief Mark Vargas General Counsel Scott Kaspar Copyright © 2025 IR Media Corp., all rights reserved.

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?