The Commission on Presidential Debates announced they will not hold a “YouTube debate” – with questions submitted through voter-generated videos – for this year’s election.
That’s a little disappointing – since 1992’s “townhall” format, the Commission has seemed willing to experiment with new ways of pitting candidates against each other. Still, the idea was tried in the primaries and proved to be little more than a gimmick. Debate co-sponsor CNN essentially picked the questions anyway, so the only difference was that a talking snowman asked candidates about global warming rather than Wolf Blitzer.
A better “voter-generated debate” format might work along the lines of 10questions.com, a project originating from TechPresident.com. The site invites video questions, allows people to vote them up or down, and submits the top ten to all candidates for their response. That would promote videos which are both informative and entertaining. Best of all, those submitting videos would have to “campaign” for votes as well by rounding up friends and social network contacts to vote – which means the project could have an opportunity for viral expansion.
For critics, the long-term solution is to simply break the current debate monopoly by offering new and exciting debate formats every four years – independent of the Commission. As with any idea, it may take time to catch on, but a smart candidate will view it as a way to connect with voters – and, since this is still politics, an opportunity issue a withering criticism of his or her opponent for not jumping on board sooner.
Jim Eltringham 