Why do these debates even HAVE "speaking" timers??

[mjr]

I don't get it. I really don't.

While the moderators did a fairly good job of keeping that train wreck under control, I don't understand why they even have those buzzers to tell the candidates when their time is up. Every debate I've seen, the candidates will speak past the buzzer for 10-15 seconds at least.

If the candidates are gonna ignore it, why even have it?

The simplest solution is to just turn off the mic when the person's time is up, and move on to the next question/candidate. My wife says it's "prudent" for them to speak past the timer, and that the moderators can't do anything about it, because then they'll look unfair.

[Greenday]

You let them finish their point unless it gets excessive. That's the whole point of the debate is to learn about the candidates and cutting them off wouldn't help that.

[mjr]

You let them finish their point unless it gets excessive. That's the whole point of the debate is to learn about the candidates and cutting them off wouldn't help that.

Oh, sure. I understand that. The problem I have is this:

Let's say they each get a minute to answer a question.

The answers went something like this:

Blah, blah, blah, blah (on something possibly unrelated), Hillary/Barack, blah blah blah, <ding!> blah blah...short answer...

Non-controversial example:

Let's say a candidate was asked "What's your favorite animal?"

You might get an answer like:

"Things are crazy right now. Hillary and Barack want to take your animals away from you and give them to people who don't have pets. People should have pets. ISIS doesn't have pets, and look at them. <ding> By the way, I love pets! I have three cats, two parakeets, and two dogs...and the American people should be able to have pets if they want!

Not every candidate did this, but I'm sure you'll find out that they could have easily (in my opinion) answered questions within the given time frame.

Besides, one of the complaints about politicians is that they bloviate too much anyway.

But I guess the question is: If they're going to ignore the timer, why even have it? Just get rid of it completely, and have a free-for-all as far as answers go. If the moderators ask <whoever> a queston, and they want to take ten or fifteen minutes to answer the question in detail, why not?

[TheHuckster]

But I guess the question is: If they're going to ignore the timer, why even have it? Just get rid of it completely, and have a free-for-all as far as answers go. If the moderators ask <whoever> a queston, and they want to take ten or fifteen minutes to answer the question in detail, why not?

Because then the debates would take about as long as a 7-game World Series. Hell, I think you're giving them the benefit of the doubt thinking they'd only take 10-15 minutes to answer questions without a timer. I'd say with at least some of them, it would be an hour-long run-on sentence rant.

[mjr]

Because then the debates would take about as long as a 7-game World Series. Hell, I think you're giving them the benefit of the doubt thinking they'd only take 10-15 minutes to answer questions without a timer. I'd say with at least some of them, it would be an hour-long run-on sentence rant.

Oh, sure. I'm sure some of them would ramble on and on and on. That's why I suggested cutting off the mic. I guess the buzzer is meant to show that the moderators have some semblance of control of the debate. But every debate I've seen, candidates have flat-out ignored it.

I mean, when candidates have 1 minute to answer, and spend 45 seconds because "I want to address something that was asked two questions ago..." and then spend 15 or 20 seconds past the "buzzer" answering the question they were asked...cutting the mic may help solve that problem.

[s_stabeler]

there's really two separate issues.

1. when there are slight- 10ish seconds- overruns on time to finish the point the candidate was making. That's fine.
2. when candidates completely ignore that there is even a limit on how long they are supposed to talk for. This is an issue for the moderators to deal with- if a candidate is getting to the point via Antartica, then the moderators can, and should, tell the candidate to STFU.

[mjr]

there's really two separate issues.

1. when there are slight- 10ish seconds- overruns on time to finish the point the candidate was making. That's fine.

But sometimes (or, most of the time) the overrun isn't necessarily to finish the point. It's more like <ding> Hillary/Barack, America, America, when I'm President...etc.

2. when candidates completely ignore that there is even a limit on how long they are supposed to talk for. This is an issue for the moderators to deal with- if a candidate is getting to the point via Antartica, then the moderators can, and should, tell the candidate to STFU.

This is my main point. It seems to me like they're just barreling past the buzzer anyway, regardless as to if it's "finishing" their point.

The Mic thing is simple, I think. The moderators make it CLEAR that it will be applied fairly and evenly to everyone. First couple of times candidates get their mics cut, they'll either have to waste time on another question "addressing" what they didn't get to say, or they'll learn to actually answer questions concisely without bloviating.

[s_stabeler]

if they aren't finishing the point, then it doesn't matter how long they are overrunning for.

I guess the reason the moderators don't intervene is that, unfortunately, in America, whenever someone disagrees with what the media does, they accuse said media of being biased for the other side, when clearly those on your side are unbiased. In other words, there would be accusations of bias from candidates that were cut off.

it's almost a shame that debates DO have time limits, though, since requiring candidates to keep their answers short actually encourages one of the bigger problems with American politics- namely, that short soundbites exert a disproportionate influence over the electorate. (for example, the old saw about people losing their insurance policies because of the ACA. Obama's claim (you will be able to keep your old insurance policy if you want to) MEANT that the ACA would grandfather in existing policies. However, insurance companies decided- either because they figured the policies were no longer commercially viable, or out of spite- to close down the policies anyway. However, that takes a LOT more room to explain.

[HYHYBT]

I wish they'd quit calling them debates until they narrow it down to two or, at most, three. With seven, it's just a horrible mess, and that they don't seem to put the same questions to everybody, or even have any pattern to who they ask next, just makes it worse.

Setting that aside... I'm an old-style game show fan. if I were in charge of the debates, I'd get isolation booths, however many are needed. Their microphones only work during their turn to speak, clock visible to the candidate and the audience so they can tell when to wrap it up; if they can't and not being able to finish a sentence makes them look bad, their own fault. Also, this would not be done live: any blatant meandering to favorite talking points or not answering the question would be cut out and the question re-asked as many times as necessary. (And yes, the booth doors would be locked. Bathroom breaks allowed AFTER you answer the current question.)

Problem is, nobody would show up.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, it got pretty irritating watching the GOP debates and having them just barrel through the timer. Finishing your point is fine but they're just shoving out as much of their own prepared statements as they can.

Which is particularly irritating. Its not much of a debate when everyone is just trying to squeeze in a pre-written mini-speech. Especially when they so obviously dodge/twist a question just so they can yammer out what the had prepared. Even if it was completely unrelated to the question.

I swear, some of them seemed downright offended when they were asked a particularly serious question. Or they would dodge it in such a horrendously obvious way. Or just whine about it ( Cruz ).

[mjr]

Yeah, it got pretty irritating watching the GOP debates and having them just barrel through the timer. Finishing your point is fine but they're just shoving out as much of their own prepared statements as they can.

This is what I have the problem with. That's why I asked the question in the first place. If the candidates are just going to ignore the timer, why have it? Just give them a minute and a half or two minutes to answer, then cut the mic.

Which is particularly irritating. Its not much of a debate when everyone is just trying to squeeze in a pre-written mini-speech. Especially when they so obviously dodge/twist a question just so they can yammer out what the had prepared. Even if it was completely unrelated to the question.

This is what I like to refer to as a "non-answer answer". My understanding is that some of these candidates/debates have "pre-approved" questions that they're willing to answer.

I swear, some of them seemed downright offended when they were asked a particularly serious question. Or they would dodge it in such a horrendously obvious way. Or just whine about it ( Cruz ).

That's the way of politics, though. I do kind of agree with what someone said earlier about the soundproof booths, and the "pre-taped" debates. So they can continually ask the candidate the same question until they get an actual answer.

[Gravekeeper]

This is what I like to refer to as a "non-answer answer". My understanding is that some of these candidates/debates have "pre-approved" questions that they're willing to answer.

Or they'll take their ball and go home to Youtube, apparently.

I just wish the moderators of these things would hold their ass to the fire more over answering questions. They did a fairly decent job of trying at the last one but the candidates would still just dodge it however many times it was repeated at them.

I mean Rubio literally tried to weasel out of direct video evidence.

[wolfie]

My understanding is that some of these candidates/debates have "pre-approved" questions that they're willing to answer.

Or they'll take their ball and go home to Youtube, apparently.

What the organizations hosting these debates need to do is "grow a pair", set out the terms of the debate, and it's "take it or leave it". At the beginning of the debate, the moderator tells the audience what the terms were, along with any demands for format changes (naturally, the debate refused these) from candidates - audience can then see for themselves who took their ball and wet home.