I would rather not have the debates. They only agree to a moderator who never truly challanges them.
Then what's the point?
If I understand it correctly, a moderator's job is not to call the debaters out when they lie, but instead to make sure that things don't get too out of hand and that rules are followed. The responsibility of challenging the validity of what is said goes to the two debaters.
HOWEVER, these productions are not run like real debates.
Candidates can play pretty loose with the facts and even knowingly lie (I will say the word "lie", even if the candidates won't). They should be discussing facts, not spewing and supporting misconceptions.
I think we do need some sharp, capable on-the-spot fact checkers who will check what is said, and if any major contention/statement is clearly a lie, a correction is shown in a caption on the screen OR (better yet) word is given to the moderator, who takes a break periodically to speak the correction. And the guilty candidate who misspoke is given NO opportunity to address the audience about it.
There needs to be some penalty or consequence of some kind for misleading the viewers.
Also. If you have two minutes to talk, your microphone goes dead after two minutes. Right at two minutes. I am sick of these people not playing by the rules.
Also, organizing & running the debates need to go back into the hands of the bi-partisan League of Women Voters and out of the hands of the networks hosting the various debates because it is to the Networks advantage to kiss the butts of the candidates and treat them with kid gloves so as to not offend anyone; they want to make sure that the politicians will come on to their news & talk programs for interviews....
Holy shit that's awesome!
