The presidential debates will be partially governed by an extremely detailed, legalistic 32-page contract this year. This document was negotiated by the Democratic and Republican campaigns, and dictates all manner of minutiae.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has refused to sign the agreement, but has agreed to enforce \many"" of its provisions. The commission should enforce as few provisions as possible. The agreement's ridiculous constraints destroy the purpose of the debates and take away our one true chance to see the candidates spar over positions. In a race this close, we need to see if the candidates are intelligent, calm, collected and able to think on their feet.
The agreement specifies far too much detail, from permissible camera angles to the height of the chairs and lecterns. (The lecterns ""shall measure 50 inches from the stage floor to the outside top of the podium facing the audience and shall measure 48 inches from the stage floor to the top of the inside podium writing surface,"" while the chairs must be equal in height so that Mr. Bush cannot disguise the fact that he is shorter than Mr. Kerry. It is a historical curiosity that the taller man has won most presidential elections.)
Most importantly, the agreement calls for television broadcasts to avoid showing either candidate unless he is actually talking, allowing no cutaways or responses. It even forbids prompts and follow-up questions. How are we to pin politicians down to positions if they can evade questions with a short quip and face no follow-up?
Further, if run under the agreement, the ""town meeting"" themed debate will be pure theater. The part of the citizenry will be played by an equal number of ""likely voters who are 'soft' Bush supporters [and] 'soft' Kerry supporters,"" rather than uncommitted voters. They'll be reading from a script, such as ""If any audience member poses a question or makes a statement that is in any material way different than the question that the audience member earlier submitted to the moderator for review, the moderator will cut off the questioner and advise the audience that such non-reviewed questions are not permitted."" Most ludicrously, they'll even have game show-style stage lights on a timer to indicate if someone is filibustering. Perhaps they should license the ""Jeopardy!"" theme in case a candidate takes too long to answer.
According to The New York Times, ""several people involved in the debate discussions said most of these details were demanded by the Republicans,"" but members of every party, not just Democrats, ought to oppose this charade. It may be that follow-up, rejoinders or actual citizen participation would hurt Bush more than Kerry, and it may not. It is true that Bush gives short, simplistic answers which might call for follow-up, where Kerry is known for complex answers. But in any case, the people this agreement hurts most are American voters who deserve to see their candidates react to real questions on real issues in real time.
Josh Gildea is a third-year law student. He can be reached at opinion@dailycardinal.com.
