Fixing the Presidential Debates

The tougher challenge involves dislodging the candidates from delivering canned set pieces and premeditated one-liners. That will never be fully achieved, but the existing format, of fixed-time answers and rebuttals and little candidate-to-candidate interchange, promotes this air of a minutely choreographed minuet.

Hence the most intriguing of the Annenberg recommendations, to transform the debate structure -- and, as an added benefit, reduce the role of the moderator and associated complaints about whether they are biased or interject either too much or too little.

One possibility would be a "chess clock" format under which candidates would be allotted 45 minutes of speaking time. "To take control of the floor, a candidate simply hits the chess clock," the report suggests. "No answer, rebuttal or question may exceed three minutes." Candidates would be able to challenge one another, directly.

In the commission's model, the time would be spread, evenly, across eight topics. Even better, if riskier, would be to let candidates decide on their own how to manage their time, devoting more to tax reform and less to terrorism if they want.

Another would be to change the standard format to give each candidate two 90-second "challenge flags" to deviate from the usual minute-long response, 30-second rebuttal. Exercising the challenge flag would let the candidate clarify a response or respond to an attack. It sounds hokey, but it could make for a more compelling, and more informative, debate.

Sure, in a world of multi-device distractions, the report's cover image -- mom in pearls, dad in tie, and pajama-clad kids huddled around the black-and-white TV -- is not apt to be re-enacted.

But the more Americans watch debates, and more of them, the better off we'll be. Which is what makes the debate about debates worth having.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.