Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates

" 1) There is no way of knowing whether or not the candidates are making their own arguments" We presently know that the candidates typically do not make their own arguments, especially during debates. They are coached by staffers on everything from what to say to how to walk to when to look at their opponents, for hours and hours on end. The questions are prepared ahead of time, carefully screened for "neutrality," etc. The process is presently designed so that if anything comes up the candidate wasn't told what to say about specifically, they can easily change the subject without anyone noticing. At the worst then, if your point is true, it does not represent a flaw that is not also true of the present system. "How would we know that a candidate's chief of communications isn't writing for the candidate?" They already do that. "How would we judge a president's intellect? " Same way we do now? By paying attention to what they say and knowing that, even if they didn't write what they said, they had to hire the guy who did, and thus know what they were doing insofar as they did so? And if they are controlled to the point where they didn't even have to think much to do that... than aren't we really electing whoever controls them anyway, and it doesn't matter? Whoever the president trusts enough to control him is de facto president. " 2) Electronic debates are easily susceptible to hacking. If, say, a hacker changed Senator McCain's position on the Iraq war, many voters would become incorrectly informed, and his chances for President may be unfairly hurt. " Each campaign currently operates at least one website. Have those been hacked? Video, too, is subject to alteration. In any case, in such an unlikely event, it would necessarily be quickly discovered, and for that matter a huge news event, which would correct itself. The people who actually pay attention to the debates aren't the ones who fail to hear the memo about obvious falsehoods. 3) Almost 30% of Americans do not have access to the Internet![2][3] Now, it's much easier to get access to a TV than it is to a computer with Internet access. I believe that as many voters as feasibly possible should have be informed. Having Internet debates would deny 30% of America to be informed. At home perhaps. Yet public libraries typically happen to have computer access. With those factored in, that number shrinks dramatically, to mostly rural types (who frequently lack access to much in the way of TV stations either). Also, I'm sure newspapers and such would want to include transcripts of the debates, or perhaps they'd be published independently, depending on length. Also, some of the current debates are on CNN. How many americans lack cable? I'm sure the number has to compare with that lacking internet, and public libraries lack cable. " 4) Even if everyone did have Internet access, fewer people would view the debates-- it is much easier to watch something for an hour than to read for multiple hours." Not true at all! Because reading can be broken up into chunks, and done at ANY TIME. The debates are broadcast once or twice, cannot be broken into chunks, etc. All of this, of course, largely ignores the nature of current television debates- They tell us very very little. The candidates spend as much time practicing body language as they do their actual arguments. EVEN IF fewer people get the message of electronic debates, those who do will get far more information, because the words can be picked over more easily, and weaselling out of things will be far too obvious. There will be time to mull over the actual LOGIC of the arguments, and fewer options to cloud them in emotionalism. This is not to say that it will be impossible, most voters will still get about as much as before as they did out of the debates- that is, nothing at all, since most frankly don't understand much about what's being said. But of those who do have a modicum of the ability to understand, far more will actually learn something of substance. There will be no excuse for, say, making up unsourced statistics in mid-debate... with time to actually formulate the arguments they will be able to give a source if one exists, and be exposed if none does. Imagine a debate where the resolution has to do with the tactical prosecution of the war in Iraq, and I start, unprompted, to talk about how much respect I have for the troops without ever answering the question. It would look kind of silly on debate.org, everyone would notice, and rightly so. Yet that is the state of the average presidential debate. For a more concrete example, take a gem from the Republican primary debates... Huckabee was being questioned about extending education benefits to illegal immigrants, I believe it was Romney who responded "This is why I say you're a liberal on that issue, that's not your money to be generous with" or some such (unfortunately it is hard to source video debates, at least hard for me, youtube searches tend not to work very well for finding a specific exchange of words, while electronic debates would not have that problem, imagine that!). Huckabee trailed off "I think we're a better country than to discriminate based on parentage.." Perhaps, but the writing on the wall, Romney's implied attack on the welfare state was never followed through on. Not many noticed the evasion by Huckabee, nor the fact that this conflicted with Romney's actions as governor (signing into law universal health care and such). Were the debates electronic, some commenter would bring this up, and such issues of logic, that are currently relegated to the fringe element would become central. It is, quite simply, harder to evade in text. You can't shout someone down endlessly for being cruel or unpatriotic or what not, there is no volume to quiet them :D. You can't interrupt them, their speaking does not conflict.