Long before CNBC moderators came under fire from conservatives for their questions during the latest presidential nomination face-off, the Republican debate process was a mess.
From the get go, there’s been a structural problem. A historically crowded field has meant that networks running each event face a dilemma: either allow everybody to participate in a massive battle royale in which candidates get only a few minutes of speaking time, or use some sort of criteria to whittle down the candidates before voters have even had a chance to cast a single vote.
So, thus far, they’ve decided to split the difference. That’s how viewers have been treated to the spectacle of having an undercard or “kiddie debate” of the lower-polling candidates and then a main event of candidates who are doing better in surveys.
But as the campaign season enters November, the field hasn’t organically narrowed itself down and so there are still 14 candidates remaining. The problem of having too many candidates hasn’t solved itself and the current approach to dividing up the candidates no longer makes any sense.
For the CNBC debates, the main event featured 10 candidates, an unwieldy number that substantially limits speaking time and doesn’t provide much room for lengthy discussions.
One of the defenses of CNBC moderators was that they were asking tough but fair questions, challenging the candidates to defend the specifics of their proposals. But it’s absurd to ask such questions under the guise of wanting to facilitate an intelligent and serious conversation, and then limit responses to 60 seconds.
As for the undercard debate, there was not much drama or interest created by having Gov. Bobby Jindal mix it up with Sen. Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and Rick Santorum. But because there were only four candidates, the minor candidates actually received generally more speaking time than the top tier ones.
For instance, Jindal, who is polling at near zero nationally, had more speaking time than any candidate in either debate. And Pataki, who polls at zero more often than not both nationally and in the early primary states, had more speaking time than Ben Carson, arguably the current front-runner.
There’s one easy way to make the main event more substantive while making the undercard debate more interesting. That is to raise the threshold for qualifying for the main debate.
For instance, if the networks were to place the cut off for qualification in the main debate at 5 percent support, that would leave six candidates (if looking at an average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics): Carson, Donald Trump, Sen. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Carly Fiorina. The ultimate nominee is likely to come from this group, and if these were the only six candidates, there would be more room to get into actual substance and issues that are going to decide the nomination.
Meanwhile, there would be more reason to watch the earlier debate. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Rand Paul and Govs. Chris Christie and John Kasich would join the other lower-tiered candidates.
The candidates booted from the main stage may bark, but there are a number of reasons why they can’t legitimately complain. They have already had the opportunity to appear in three debates and have had months to campaign and boost their poll numbers.
Also, being in the undercard debate need not be seen as a ticket to Siberia. Fiorina proved that a strong performance in the earlier debate can boost a campaign. And if more candidates were in the earlier debate, more people would watch.
Furthermore, being in the earlier debate with fewer candidates could mean more speaking time than a main debate with 10 candidates.
As long as no-hope candidates refuse to drop out, and as long as networks are dedicated to doing two debates, they should shake up the process this way to create a better viewing experience and a create a better opportunity for a serious debate.
