YouTube to Host Presidential Debate

skotte writes "Wired is reporting that July 23 at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina, Anderson Cooper will host presidential debates in which debaters are asked 20-30 questions culled from a specially designated section of YouTube, where the voting populace can post questions directly. You and I (assuming you're American, probably) can ask questions ourselves, not just a reporter in a crowd. Candidates won't know which questions they are being asked, and the video selection process will remain a complete secret. Interesting, but also the slightest bit scary."

Comments

Just a nit or two...

[HellYeahAutomaton]

It absolutely annoys me in the mainstream (Democratic and Republican) debates that all of the candidates don't get to answer the same question.

During the Rep. debate that just occurred, but was also annoying was that the candidates were not self-policing their own timers, as well as talking over the moderator who wanted to interrupt them. This makes both the moderator and the candidates look like amateurs. Perhaps the idea is to shut off their microphones when they run out of time.

Please people, get your point across, and do it in a timely manner.

Re:Just a nit or two...

[eln]

Perhaps the idea is to shut off their microphones when they run out of time.

Electrical shocks. Send them steadily more powerful electrical shocks until they shut up. At the very least, it will make the debates more entertaining.

Re:Been done before

[stinerman]

It's quite obvious why they don't answer the question directly. They aren't sure which side of the issue 50%+1 of the populace is on. Furthermore, if you don't answer the question directly, you don't run the risk of alienating some people who might vote for you.

This is one reason I like Ron Paul. He and I don't agree on everything, but he's not afraid to say what he thinks. He's authentic, and I think that is why people are gravitating toward him. They know that no one wants to abolish the Depts. of Education, Homeland Security, etc. because he thinks it's going to get him votes. He does so because that is what he truly believes.

I'll take a true believer that I disagree with on some substantive issues over someone that can't decide if they are for or against something until they see the polls.

Re:Been done before

[griffjon]

American politics has been stripped of the shades of gray enough as it is - how would a moderate republican who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother respond to an "Abortion: Yes or no?" question adequately? Fine, require a "straight" answer of yes or no, but don't prohibit explanations of why they hold that position.