Comments on: Debate Time Follow-up: The CNN debate http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/11/16/debate-time-follow-up-the-cnn-debate/ Recommendations, Resources, and Reform Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:53:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Joshua Tauberer http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/11/16/debate-time-follow-up-the-cnn-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-2798 Joshua Tauberer Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:16:15 +0000 http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/11/16/debate-time-follow-up-the-cnn-debate/#comment-2798 That's a fair point to consider, but it's a testable hypothesis. Does the public actually want time allocated by the polls? As I mentioned in my first post on this, I concede that it's reasonable to eliminate the most unlikely candidates for the sake of having a worthwhile debate, and so the public at large probably would agree up to that degree. But let's go to the other extreme. Let's say it's down to the general election debates, and one candidate is sweeping in the polls, looking at a landslide victory. How much of the public do you think would say that the debate between the two candidates should be structured with one having 50% more time than the other? I can only hope that those who are committed to a candidate would at least concede that a fair debate would give each equal time, and the ones still choosing would I think consider it most helpful for them to see equal time given to each. The point really is, and I hope the public at large would agree to address your concern, that the point of the debate is to help us decide, and unequal allocation of time adds a bias that detracts from the point. If we didn't want to hear from Biden, why include him in the first place? That’s a fair point to consider, but it’s a testable hypothesis. Does the public actually want time allocated by the polls? As I mentioned in my first post on this, I concede that it’s reasonable to eliminate the most unlikely candidates for the sake of having a worthwhile debate, and so the public at large probably would agree up to that degree.

But let’s go to the other extreme. Let’s say it’s down to the general election debates, and one candidate is sweeping in the polls, looking at a landslide victory. How much of the public do you think would say that the debate between the two candidates should be structured with one having 50% more time than the other? I can only hope that those who are committed to a candidate would at least concede that a fair debate would give each equal time, and the ones still choosing would I think consider it most helpful for them to see equal time given to each.

The point really is, and I hope the public at large would agree to address your concern, that the point of the debate is to help us decide, and unequal allocation of time adds a bias that detracts from the point. If we didn’t want to hear from Biden, why include him in the first place?

]]> By: richard http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/11/16/debate-time-follow-up-the-cnn-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-2792 richard Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:19:55 +0000 http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/11/16/debate-time-follow-up-the-cnn-debate/#comment-2792 Let me present the other side of the argument here. I think you have to remember that we (the People) decide which candidates lead in the polls. Allotting them proportionately more time is then (in a way) simply acquiescing to the will of the people. "These are the guys you're interested in, so we'll give them more time." Seems natural enough to me. Not everything has as nefarious a motive imaginable. Let me present the other side of the argument here.
I think you have to remember that we (the People) decide which candidates lead
in the polls.
Allotting them proportionately more time is then (in a way) simply acquiescing to the will of the people.
“These are the guys you’re interested in, so we’ll give them more time.”
Seems natural enough to me.
Not everything has as nefarious a motive imaginable.

]]>