Live Political Debates

[The Winnipeg Warrior]

Do televised debates before elections help you to decide which way you're going to vote? Or have you made up your mind who you're going to vote for long before you enter the voting booth?

I know that I like to pay close attention to these telecasts. It's not so much what is said, as to how it is being said. It's much like a two-hour photo-op. However, the recent Canadian debates have been produced a little differently than in past years.

Debates follow different format than predecessors

Friday night's political contest followed the same format as the one a night earlier.

Panels of journalists did not pose questions. Instead, the leaders responded to videotaped questions from everyday Canadians, with the moderator authorized to ask followup questions.

The debates in the last election, in June 2004, were criticized for cross-chatter and interruptions among the leaders, the result of each candidate's microphone being kept on at the same time.

For the four debates leading up to the Jan. 23 vote, leaders are to respond, one at a time, to each question. As one leader is speaking, the microphones for the other three are cut off.

The cool thing about watching this was that no one had a coached answer in response to the question. There was no time to prepare.....it was basically run-and-gun. Some stumbled, some fumbled, some danced around the issue, and some took it head on.....depending on the question. In the end, this format served the populice well.....and I'm looking forward to the next live debate. Whether it be in French or English.

I've seen the US debates on the major American channels and those in the UK on the BBC. How do you feel about this, or is voting not a high priority for you? If not, why?

 

[Lord SteveO]

In my experience all the politicians skip round the important things and waste time arguing about who is lying more.
I don't base my vote on who can make a good TV appearance, or who can act the way the people want them to.
I base my vote on the actual policies of those standing. Sdaly at the moment in the UK i think all parties are a jokeas they avoid the vital issues and waste all their time trying to blame the other side for what is wrong. Nobody has any answers anymore, it's always blame the other side instead.

If such debates can at least get the general publice interested enough to think about the vote then good. But i doubt they seriously reflect who is the better candidate. They are jsut another TV show, where everything is carefully chosen by the campaighn teams to reflect their candidate in the best possible light. People need to look beyond what they see on TV or read in magazines.

 

[ACIDBATHER]

I think televised debates are dangerous.At least in America where people have been known to (Stupidly) chose candidates soley on their appearance and/or debating skill. When politics become too visual, the real issues get lost somewhere between insightful questions like "How come Nixon didn't Shave?" And "Why Does John Kerry's face look like it's been attacked by a plunger?" As much as I hate to admit it, the American public can be that stupid.

 

[Lord SteveO]

My point exactly.
TV appearences are simply well coreographed publicity and propaganda stunts. The campaign teams know this and use every trick in the book to make their candidate more apealing to the voters.
I'd guess a lot of stupid people (in the US, and in the UK) will vote for a person based more on the colour of shirt they wear on TV as oppose to their policies.
Yes the general public is that stupid.

 

[ACIDBATHER]

I'd guess a lot of stupid people (in the US, and in the UK) will vote for a person based more on the colour of shirt they wear on TV as oppose to their policies.
Yes the general public is that stupid.

Indeed, one of the saddest examples I've seen of such thinking was a Woman I know who said she was going to vote for Ross Perot when he made his bid for the presidency because "He's a cute lil' old Man."

Is it any great wonder why someone like Stephen Hawking hasn't been asked to run for President? Can't have a gimp in the highest public orafice I guess-Even if he's light years smarter than any of the mental midgets we have there now.

 

[ARC150]

I think the role of President/Prime Minister in Western, First World politics has primarily become that of a liason between the government machine and the people that it governs. I can speak much better regarding the US than Canada (or other western countries), but I think the same rules apply.

To this end, I think televised debates are useful in determining how well a given candidtate can relate to that public he wishes to govern (as The Winnipeg Warrior says, "It's not so much what is said, as to how it is being said.").

As to what is a determining factor otherwise, I evaluate the major planks in a given candidate's platform first, his stance/vote on related bills/debates second, and his political party third.

 

[derek]

Televised debated can thrash out a candidates views a little, at least on any broadcasts i have seen here in the UK. The recent Tory leadership race had a televised debate between the two David's that i found quite interesting and helpful in decided whether I could ever like/agree/possibly vote for either of the candidates.

 

[ACIDBATHER]

To this end, I think televised debates are useful in determining how well a given candidtate can relate to that public he wishes to govern (as The Winnipeg Warrior says, "It's not so much what is said, as to how it is being said.").

That is where the danger lies.If candidates are judged soley on presentation, what they are actually saying gets lost. And the insufferably sensational newsmedia doesn't help matters toward this end either.Take a look at poor old Howard Dean for instance;Was a time when you had to stick your crank into anything that moved,NOT inhale your joint, break into the white house and use drug money to fund wars in south/central America before you lost all crediblity with the American public;Now all you have to do is get a little excited,scream, and your political career is smithereens.

Frankly, I think everyone in this thread had some insightful things to say, but that's not the norm where the average voter is concerned.Until it is, Televised debates will prove to be a mixed blessing at best.

 

[ARC150]

Televised debates will prove to be a mixed blessing at best.

Agreed.

I think it is a regular practice to choose amongst candidates regardless of the voter's knowledge of them. By this, I mean that an uninformed voter will many times choose a candidate rather than choose no candidate; in such a scenario, one slip-up or one heavily pressed hot-button topic can make or break that candidate.

 

[ACIDBATHER]

To be honest, whenever I choose a candidate, I am thinking more in terms of the lesser of two evils. Of course I wouldn't be surprised to find that this is true of most people on this board.

 

[the alumnus]

my philosophy way back in may of 04 was that debates were meaningless, and i felt vindicated by the results of november. debates are meaningless. by every account i read, kerry won the debates handily. yet he lost the election. i see few other conclusions, and though it is episodic, consider this; the most famous debate was the nixon-kennedy debate. and the better looking candidate won. does that tell you anything about the electorate? coincidence? tell that to jimmy carter.

 

[Horus]

I actually pay attention to debates. Not quite what each candidate is saying, but the way they handle the questions, the way they act and react, stuff like that. If they handle the question with ease, and maintain their composure, then they're well organized and know how to speak in public, a good quality for a politician. If they havdle the question with difficulty and do stuff like sweat, hesitate and get all nervous, then they're not the right person for me.

 

[ACIDBATHER]

I actually pay attention to debates. Not quite what each candidate is saying, but the way they handle the questions, the way they act and react, stuff like that. If they handle the question with ease, and maintain their composure, then they're well organized and know how to speak in public, a good quality for a politician.

Not to take your post out of context, but those are also valuable qualities for a Con artist to have as well...Politican-Con Artist-six in one, half dozen in the other.

 

[Horus]

That's a good point.

 

[MasterOLightning]

In the US, the candidates have leaned towards the middle to appeal to the majority. Since this is the case, party affiliation is really the only thing that matters. Both candidates talk moderate during the campaign, but would cave towards their bases after being elected, like Bush has done.

The televised debates could have won Kerry the election, I think, but he really would have had to wow people, and his "victories" in the debates was marginal. I thought he got beat in the foreign policy debate, which was the more important one in this election. I can't foresee that being the case next time.

 

[derek]

The foreign policy debate was probably always gonna go in favour of Bush. Much of the country is polarised on such an issue, and a great deal are in support of America's current attitude to "exporting democracy". Granted, however, that number seems to be diminishing, even since last yr when Bush was elected.

 

[ACIDBATHER]

The foreign policy debate was probably always gonna go in favour of Bush. Much of the country is polarised on such an issue, and a great deal are in support of America's current attitude to "exporting democracy". Granted, however, that number seems to be diminishing, even since last yr when Bush was elected.

I would argue that most of the Americans that voted for Shrub last time did so more out of propaganda based fear of terrorism than "Exporting democracy". That and the obvious fact that Kerry was a goddamned joke! Conspiratorial as it may sound, I am of the opinion that someone of Neo-conservative persuassion infiltrated the Democratic party and made damn sure that the one person who was given the nomination was almost certain to either lose the election or become a tool who pretty much supported the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton agenda anyway.

 

[The Winnipeg Warrior]

Once again, I think that this is a good thing. Many people don't have the time.....nor do the candidates.....to interact together anymore. We're getting busier.....and the traditional ways of canvassing are starting to die out. So, using the media for this purpose has grown in recent years, and it's more cost effective.....and focused to reach the average voter. Along with pre-paid radio and televison ads endorsed by the running party's.

With that said, the Canadian Political Debates are stirring up a lot of interest. So much, that I think local "Town Hall" gatherings are a by-product of this.....with local candidates going toe-to-toe.

So, IMO.....the traditional way of canvassing and going door-to-door may be, for the most part, a thing of the past.No one is ever home anyways when a cnadidate stops by. We're out working or at school. So you never get that face-to-face. At least this way, you can see the candidates and hear their policies and platforms.

Tell me: Being Canadian, I really like the US system. Fixed election dates, 2 maximum terms, elected senators, maximum political party contributions, elected judges and police chiefs, maximum minimum sentences for violent crimes, etc. Is this a good thing, and do you recommend myself endorsing a candidate with this mandate? Because I'm still undecided.

Cheers!

 

[Silver Incubus]

I actually like the way our government works, you can kick out the winning party if enough of the minority agrees. Like in this case.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

...and here's why not
I live in the USA and when an election happens here ALL OF THE CANDIDATES ARE ALWAYS TOTALY CRAP so it doesn't really matter who wins... the country is pretty much fucked either way...I'd actually vote if one of the candidates was ever a person who could actually do the job really well