CDZ Should every eligible voter watch the respective U.S. party debates?

[320 Years of History]

Why did you vote as you did in the poll above?

 

[Auld Phart]

Sorry, no State TV for me.

mandatory viewing is something found in dictatorships

 

[candycorn]

Silly poll.

If you're not a Democrat or Republican (as I am not) why would I be required to watch either of the debates?

Why not require people to watch Green Party debates or Libertarian Party debates as well?

True the next President of the US will be standing on the GOP or DNC stages but it's not mandated that it be that way; it is simply the coin of the realm right now.

 

[Programmer]

I think that when we don't hear perspectives from each side, we radicalize to one side or the other. You're better off getting your reinforcement from disagreeing with the opposition, than from agreeing with like minds.

 

[Arianrhod]

"Watch" the debates? Not necessarily. Read the transcripts the next day minus the Drama? Maybe, if you think they're informative. Better to read each candidate's website, or at least be aware of which ones require you to register and provide your email address so they can spam you...very telling,..

 

[candycorn]

Debates are meaningless. Tonight's debate, for example, was about terrorism and security. Why? Because two Kelibold/Harris style attacks in Paris and San Berns. There is no way to prevent them outside of total gun confiscation and total official surveillance; both are measures that none would endorse. Yet, there they were, prospective leaders of the free world having to answer question after question on how they are going to fight it when there is no way to fight it outside of draconian measures being used which are precisely the types of measures the terrorist wish we would use.

If you want to learn about a candidate, simply read their positions. If they are silent on a position, the chances are that they have no plan they wish to publicize so be dubious about their intent.

 

[Tilly]

If people can find the time to watch the debates, I think it's a good idea. Transcripts are dry and reporters can distort what is said quite easily. There's nothing better than seeing and hearing for yourself what the candidates have to say, how they interact, and what their body language might tell you, imho.

 

[Arianrhod]

If people can find the time to watch the debates, I think it's a good idea. Transcripts are dry and reporters can distort what is said quite easily. There's nothing better than seeing and hearing for yourself what the candidates have to say, how they interact, and what their body language might tell you, imho.

Politics as Performance Art for the win.

 

[Gracie]

Of course you should. That is why Obama got in twice. Gotta pay 'tention to ALL those running.

 

[Kosh]

Why did you vote as you did in the poll above?

I did not vote in the poll as I do not believe in making things that mandatory..

I do believe they should shorten the time to a 9 month period before the elections in stead of two years out..

Many people get election fatigue and sometime vote for the person they see the least in the news..

I think a very limited election period may help people pay attention more..

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Why did you vote as you did in the poll above?

No. Has nothing to do with being President. Isn't even a real debate. More like a joint press conference.

 

[320 Years of History]

Sorry, no State TV for me.

mandatory viewing is something found in dictatorships

Well, there is a pretty clear difference between "should watch" and "must watch." I didn't ask if folks must watch it. Perhaps I should have written "ought."

 

[waltky]

Granny says she's registered Independent...

... so she don't gotta watch nothin'.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's easier, as well as more informative, to just do a little research on the Candidates themselves.

A fake, staged managed "TV Show" with paid audience members doesn't serve much of a purpose unless yer hoping for the "Nixon Sweating" or "George Bush Checks his Watch" moments.

 

[Mac1958]

Why did you vote as you did in the poll above?

I voted no. Debates are essentially worthless to me - non-stop rehearsed sound bites and media-led personal attacks. Insulting, to a degree.

There are several other ways to form opinions of these people, and much better than some glossy, cynical reality show.
.

 

[Freemason9]

I believe that the U.S. should follow the Australian example by making voting mandatory. Failure to vote is fined. All Americans need to pay attention; right now, our democratic process is being overrun by political zealots.

 

[saveliberty]

Are you suggesting we watch BOTH Republican and Democrat debates?

If we want people to truly form informed opinions, that would seem to be the way to go.

The OP also suggests we need an informed and intelligent voter. For the most part liberals seem to want no barrier to voting, including some system to verify a voter is who they say they are. Sounds like a lot needs to change before we simply require voters to watch debates.

 

[Tilly]

Sorry, no State TV for me.

mandatory viewing is something found in dictatorships

Well, there is a pretty clear difference between "should watch" and "must watch." I didn't ask if folks must watch it. Perhaps I should have written "ought."

I assumed you meant 'ought to' watch.

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you suggesting we watch BOTH Republican and Democrat debates?

If we want people to truly form informed opinions, that would seem to be the way to go.

The OP also suggests we need an informed and intelligent voter. For the most part liberals seem to want no barrier to voting, including some system to verify a voter is who they say they are. Sounds like a lot needs to change before we simply require voters to watch debates.

Well, I'm not of a mind to ever mandate that folks watch political debates.

I do think that voters need to be knowledgeable and intelligent. Were I to have an implementable way to mandate that voters demonstrate a certain extent of both traits, I would advocate for it. Unfortunately, I don't see how that can be done equitably. For now, then, I just have to consider that as one of those good ideas that must be forgone because it's not deployable.

I voted no. Debates are essentially worthless to me - non-stop rehearsed sound bites and media-led personal attacks. Insulting, to a degree.

There are several other ways to form opinions of these people, and much better than some glossy, cynical reality show.
.

Just as a matter of clarification, and I realize this may seem like a minor detail, but I don't think it is and I'll briefly share why. I try very hard to refrain from forming opinions about the "people" who seek my vote. Instead, I attempt to form opinions about their ideas and approaches.

Why have I bothered to cite that distinction? Well, because over the years, I've had the pleasure and displeasure of meeting a small number of public figures, most often at fundraising venues or social events. Some of those events were politically purposed and others not. It's been my observation that some folks whose political proposals I usually and absolutely detest are nonetheless quite acceptable to me as individuals. There're folks with whom I'd be happy to share a meal, a conversation, trust to babysit my grandkids, etc. That shouldn't surprise anyone for I am sure that everyone has made exactly the same observation about myriad people whom they've met.

The reason the above clarification is important, to me at least, is that I am a native of D.C. I can recall growing up and seeing people from opposing sides of the aisle interacting as social friends and acquaintances. (I suppose the modern term for it is "frenemies.") I don't' see that happening nearly as often these days. Honestly, I believe that because those men from years gone by were able to get past their differences on, say, the House floor, they were able to get legislation passed, they understood that compromise and negotiation were among the keys to exercising effective political leadership.

The atmosphere one commonly sees these days around "social Washington" amounts to "I can't stand 'so and so's' positions, and I disagree with them. Therefore, s/he is a jerk, and I won't have a damn thing to do with them." In short, " the politics of no." Now I can't think of how one can craft mutually agreeable solutions with one's opponents, opponents who are not going to go away, unless one bothers to know (not judge) them. The quite chilly air between some key elected leaders is, in fact, quite shocking to me. After all, one of the key success factors to winning elected office is having an amicable personality, yet these days it seems that many an elected leader is only able to pleasant with those who share his/her views. Pitiful.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Perhaps I should have written "ought."

It wouldn't have helped, unfortunately. Perhaps if you had submitted the question in cartoon form.

To answer your question, no. The problem with debates is the same problem we have here, a lack of quality moderation. The debates are supposed to be a means by which politicians can be forced to answer the tough questions about their policy proposals. Politicians no longer make policy proposals, they just say I'm going to do wonderful things, trust me. If they are asked a question they don't like they ignore it, castigate the moderator for asking "gotcha" questions, then proceed to talk "directly" to the American people instead of answering. What value does that have? It has become hollow political theater, just like the conventions.