Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 46% | 39 votes | Total: 85 votes | |
| No | 54% | 46 votes |
The number of presidential Debates SHOULD be limited to three. The following reason support my conclusion: We watch T.V To past the time, I don't want to turn to ABC trying to catch 'Heros' and instead see a debate. I'm aware some people like to watch debates, but there is no need to air them on five basic channels, that everyone gets. Limit that to one. I believe that since, the presidential electives don't even write their replies, they should only have one. And focus on connecting with the people personally, not through false speeches. The need to show your support for the country is enough to stand up for hours debating, but not enough to write your own speeches? Thats why I don't vote. I will vote when the presidential elective writes his/her own speeches. The right for the most powerful position in the world is not something to come easily. Limiting the debates to only three is even better. They wont be on T.V as much, thus making them HAVE to go out and get personal. Another point to bring up is most electors don't even listen to the other debater's views. Its waiting for your turn to talk, and thats not even an interesting debate.
Thats why the number of presidential debates should be limited to 3.
Learn more about this author, Zach B.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Presidential debates, while tedious at times and very self serving, encourage the people of the country to become involved in the democratic process. The debates, as formatted, are not really debates, but a re-stating of the candidates ideas on a variety of subjects. We all know how many Democrats feel about the war in Iraq, though a number of presidential candidates voted to authorize it in the Senate. Those votes are haunting Senator Clinton and former Senator John Edwards.
We know that Mitt Romney (what is his real name?) is against abortion. though his wife donated to a pro-choice group a number of years ago. The public benefits when they have more information and that is what debates provide. How many times do we have to be reminded that John McCain spent 9 years in a North Vietnamese Prisoner-of-War (POW) camp after being shot down while dropping bombs from his Navy jet. But, for the one person that does not know that, the debates provide him or her with the opportunity to more about the candidate.
Voters are largely one issue voters; Abortion, choice, gun control, gay marriage, Iraq and the list goes on. It appears that Kennedy's performance in the 1960 debates did sway enough voters to make a difference; he won by less than 1% of the vote nationwide, though the Electoral College numbers were overwhelmingly in favor of Kennedy.
Do the presidential debates sway anyone's votes? Probably not, since you, as a voter tune in to watch 'your' candidate, how well they do and how bad the others look. How many watch the debates of the other party, except those who have a job with one party or the other and are out to jump on the mis-statements of a potential opponent?
The mainstream media by and large controls the debate process. "Debates" are now largely a product of the mainstream media. Do we see debates broadcast on a small outlet originating in a small town in central Florida? No, the large cities, with a lot of press coverage. The Republican 'front runners' made a big mistake not showing up at the 'debate' at Howard University a few weeks ago. That decision by these candidates may sway just one percent to five percent of not only African-American voters, but some undecided voters, black or not when the general election is held in November of 2008. It will come up.
Do not limit debates!
Learn more about this author, Tom Ontis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.