More useful than the Hunger Games reality TV “debates”, would be some kind of central clearing house (e.g., website) that lists each candidate’s position on pertinent topics. Let the candidate write the position (100 words or less?) and then have a neutral publisher comment on its veracity, such as whether the position has changed or if public comments contradict the position. For topics with no developed position, a candidate can enter “TBD” or “no opinion”. For this election cycle, pertinent topics might be (each candidate can also offer others):
- Health Care
- Big Pharma
- Drugs, Opioid Crisis
- Immigration
- Equality (needed improvements)
- Infrastructure
- Wealth and Taxes
- Minimum Wage
- National Debt
- Foreign Policy
- War
- VA
- Trade
- Guns
- Education
- Media
- Lobbying
- Campaign Financing
- Elections (hacking, need for Electoral College, etc.)
- Climate Change
Wouldn’t it be nice to just go down the list and see how the candidates vary? Wouldn’t it be nice to pin them down on these topics? If they choose to not answer the question, as they often do in debates, or if they fill the space with subterfuge, such would be exposed in the bright light of black and white print. If they refuse to participate, that in itself becomes our selection criterion. Finally, after election we will have a baseline to compare action to promises. What a novel thought!