How to make political debates better

Here at Solutions Unlimited, we’re all about making things better. From the mundane to the mission-critical, no aspect of life is too small for us.

That being said, the first of the Republican debates was just held, and we found the whole experience needs a lot of work. Nothing against Fox News, we just find the whole political debate process in general infuriating and believe that it can be made better with just a few tweaks.

We realize that these suggestions may not be popular, especially with those participating in the debates, but we believe that they will result in a more open and honest debate and a more informed electorate.

One of the worst things about debates is how frequently the candidates will avoid a question. Avoiding questions in debates does little more than insult the intelligence of the electorate, who we believe mostly just wants to hear the candidates say what they think on the issues.

What we propose is an independent panel of three judges at each debate whose sole job is to determine if the candidate actually answered the question that they were asked. After a candidate finishes his response to a question, the panel will vote on if they believe the candidate answered the question. If two of the three in the panel feel that the candidate tried to duck the question, a buzzer will sound and the candidate will be delivered a small electrical shock, similar to a dog wearing a bark collar.

The “shock collar” idea also would allow for candidates to receive jolts for other reasons, such as talking over another candidate or running over their allotted time to answer a question, allowing debate moderators to maintain control of the debate at all times.

Another proposal of ours would only apply to early debates in the primary seasons in which you have a large contingent of candidates such as in the GOP debate we just witnessed. For these, we would create a large panel of, say, 200 undecided voters and put them in a room where they can watch the entire debate. Near the end of the debate, the contingent of undecided voters will choose, in their opinion, the two worst candidates. Similar to a reality television show, the bottom two candidates will be able to plead their case one last time to our group of voters, who will then choose which candidate of the two that they prefer. The candidate who receives the least amount of votes will be “voted off the island” and will be removed from consideration in the race.

We believe that these ideas will streamline the debate process and make it more enjoyable for everybody, except for maybe candidates who love to avoid questions or who can’t manage their time.