Speech and Debate

What I would like to see in the next Presidential election cycle at the debates is a new set of rules put in place. And appoint moderators that will expressly follow those rules. I'd also like to see rules like this applied to politic ads, as well.

Rule 1: No talking about the other party

When asked a question of any type or style, all answers must be from YOUR perspective. You cannot talk about "well, according to my opponent ..." or "the philosophy of the [other party] is to ...". None of that. All questions must be answered based on your own position, your own desires, your own reasoning.

Rule 2: No pejorative words toward or attacks aimed at the other party

You are not allowed to use ANY negative words toward the other party. Your ads and your words cannot be deemed to attack the other candidate(s) position or perceived faults. This seems like it should be covered in #1, but I want it stated outright and for the record. No use of "snowflake" or "childish" or anything harsher. No fear-monger ads that misrepresent or make something seem more dire or dangerous than it is. Nada.

Rule 3: No false statements

If you are saying something and the fact-checking crew catches you in an outright lie, you get one warning. If they catch you in another lie, you pay a penalty. Lies will be determined by factual content within your statement, not normative statements.

Punishments

If you break any of the rules, the punishment for that infraction is that your microphone is cut off immediately and you do not get to finish your statement (or, in the case of Rule 3, it is cut off on the second lie within the same answer).

Once your mic is cut off, the moderator will immediately respond to the audience why the microphone was cut off and move to the next question for the next candidate.

I think that these simple rules can keep the debate lively, focused on what the candidate will do once in office, and give the audience a reason to watch. Too often the debates (and especially in the last election cycle) turned into diatribes about what "the other party" wanted to do or what "the other candidate" wanted to do... that isn't helpful. Also, it often is not true. You cannot speak for someone else. You don't know where they are coming from, what they plan to do, or how their mind may have changed.

In addition, by focusing on the candidate's position, it is easier for the audience/voter to hold that candidate accountable once they get into office. You must answer questions directly, responsibly, and on-record in front of both a live crowd and the millions watching the debate. It gives you a chance to talk about you -- and only you.

If these same rules are applied to political ads, then the punishment for those would be slightly different. The company/group providing the ad will be asked to re-edit the ad to remove the offending piece. If they are caught airing an ad that infringes on one of those rules a second time, that company/group cannot provide any more ads for that campaign season at all, for any candidate.

The rule will be doubly-applied to both the company/group name (The X Group to Elect Candidate Y, or whatever Super PAC, PAC, Candidate Committee, or grass-routes group) AND to the people who make up that group. So, for example, if Jim Walsh is the founder of a Super PAC that releases two ads that are deemed to violate one or more of the rules above, that Super PAC cannot release any more ads at all AND Jim Walsh (and all his coworkers at that Super PAC) also cannot be involved in any more ads during that election cycle, for any candidate.

These rules, and others like them, can keep the political climate open, fair, and more positive. If the audience can only hear what a candidate will do for them, they have a better chance of picking a viable candidate and hold that candidate accountable. No more attacking. No more fearmongering. No more divisiveness in the election cycle.