I began writing this post before the presumptive candidates agreed to two presidential debates. Fortunately, President Biden chose several of the ways listed below to improve the events. Those are bolded. I had nothing to do with it. Really.

Once again, Presidential debates have hit the news with the unofficial candidates both claiming how eager they are to meet one another on the stage.

The Kennedy-Nixon Debate

Now, as we all know, the debates have devolved from discussions about real issues to shouting matches that accomplish nothing. I’m old enough to remember the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Each candidate crammed as much information as their brains could hold so they could dominate the debate stage with their knowledge, policies, and recommendations.

Presidential Debate Infractions

If only we could have this today. Instead, we have seen:

• George W. Bush cheating by being wired so his staff could feed him information in real time — and demanding “Let me speak” to no one in the room
• Donald Trump leaving his lectern multiple times to loom over Hillary Clinton in a threatening way
• Candidates talking past their allotted time slot. Sometimes refusing to stop.
• Candidates talking over their opponent when he/she spoke in their time slot.
• Moderators proving themselves incapable of controlling the candidates and unwilling to maintain order

Bush v Gore Debate

This is a sad commentary on our political system, the broadcast media, and the candidates themselves. That’s because the current debate format is designed to draw eyeballs. Their goal is to pump up ratings rather than to inform the American public.

Fixing the Presidential Debate Problem

Being a firm believer in trying to fix a problem instead of just criticizing it, I offer the following potential solutions.

The Candidates

• Keep a candidate’s microphone off until it is time for him/her to speak.
• Cut off a candidate’s microphone when their time is up. They might continue talking but no one would be able to hear. This ensures a fair allocation of time and prevents any one candidate from dominating the discussion.
• If the other debater has an interjection, they may press a button which will signal the moderator and guarantee them time to speak. Limit interjections to three to avoid beating dead horses.
• Mandate that candidates remain behind their lecterns or withing a designated space, such as half of the stage. Any candidate who wanders from their lectern into the opponent’s half of the stage is disqualified and the debate ends. Or the opponent gets more time to talk.
• Any candidate who cannot or will not agree to the ground rules is disqualified.
• When a candidate tells a lie or exaggerates outrageously, an off-camera fact-checker alerts the moderator and a bell goes off. The moderator then corrects the candidate on camera.

While the candidates are the “stars” of the show, they also typically have big egos and a drive to dominate. Controlling this presents the network with a real problem. Unless they solve that problem, however, the debates will continue to deteriorate.

The Audience

Eliminate the live audience. That way a candidate cannot pack the audience with a claque or invite attendees intended to embarrass the opponent. This prevents a disruptive, irritating distraction by way of applause, comments, or harassment.

Audience Clapping at Clinton v Trump Debate

Kennedy and Nixon met in a television studio with no audience. If they could do it, this year’s candidates can do it.

An audience provides the candidates with the opportunity for grandstanding, bullying, and outrageous behavior. Instead of paying attention to the serious issues at hand, they play to the crowd. This spikes any attempt at serious debate.

The Moderator

• The moderator must not be (a) a journalist; (b) a broadcast news anchor; (c) an academic.
• The moderator must be a no-nonsense person with a track record of running an event and keeping good order. We have seen that reporters and news anchors do a really bad job of holding the candidates to the rules, as if afraid of offending them. And academics would be even worse.

So, if not news people or academics, who should moderate the presidential debates?

John Stewart

Former Speakers of the House might qualify but that would add an unwanted partisan element. Instead, I think of people who are accustomed to handling hecklers and interruptions. Also, people who take no guff and are comfortable implementing time limits. I suggest we think outside the box and offer the following:

• John Stewart
• Stephen Colbert
• Ken Jennings
• Mayim Bialik
• Gordon Ramsay
• Ted Allen
• Jeff Probst
• Any baseball umpire, NFL, NBA, or NHL official

Changing the Picture

You get the picture. We need a moderator who won’t be intimidated by a bully, confused by pivoting, or overwhelmed by fame. Someone who can keep his/her head in the moment and ensure that the presidential debates proceed smoothly. A person who can confront a misbehaving candidate and get him under control.

Any of these suggestions would help speed up and change the character of presidential debates. All it would take is the network changing its focus from ratings to information, money to public service, and obsequious toadying to good order and attention to rules.

Originally, I asked if anybody wanted to hold their breath that this could happen? As it turned out, a few ideas were implemented. Let’s see if they work.