It’s not too soon to consider presidential debates. As a former League of Women Voters forum moderator and chair of the forum moderating committee in St. Louis, I’ve been astounded by the unfair and biased handling of past presidential debates. When media personalities moderate the debates, it’s obvious from the different questions or topics presented that they are not treating the different candidates equally or fairly. One candidate will get loaded questions while the other receives neutral ones. Our national media have become so partisan that fair debates cannot be accomplished or anticipated via their participation.

A fair and even debate would require presenting fair and identical questions to both candidates. To pose different questions is to reveal bias. This is the beauty and unquestionable fairness of the League of Women Voters forums. The same question is asked of each candidate participating. Additionally, no question or topic is so personalized that it can be recognized as an attempt to harm a specific candidate. In other words, questions and topics cannot and must not be personalized. Candidates responding may take liberties, but there should also be the opportunity for rebuttals.

Both the candidates and the American electorate deserve fair debates. It’s time to change the presidential debates by denying bias and manipulation by the moderators. How can this be done? How can they be improved? Primarily, how can we ensure they are fair?

Image by macrovector.

One approach would be to have moderates who are not media personnel because they have repeatedly shown they can’t resist showing bias or favoritism. As the League of Women Voters has historically proven its trustworthiness in this regard, it may be a healthy choice.

Another suggestion is to submit the proposed questions and topics to the chairpersons of each party, who can then sit down with the moderator(s) to agree on topics and questions that are mutually allowable. Following such agreement, the party or parties moderating the debates should not be allowed to deviate from those questions and topics agreed upon.

Another suggestion is to focus on policies and what the candidates promise to do if elected. Partisanship has become so outrageously ugly that every effort to return to civility with those seeking the highest office in the nation must be a priority for the health and welfare of the United States.

Lastly, immediately after the debates, partisanship would be improved if the networks didn’t immediately air their partisan takes on what happened. It’s time to allow American citizens to ponder what they’ve heard and to make up their own minds. They should be treated as adults and not children who need explanations. Perhaps such partisan summaries could occur the next day, but not immediately.

I say this as one who lived in France and saw a different system in action. President Giscard d’Estaing addressed the nation one day on television. When he ended, there were no follow-ups by any politician interpreting what he said or rebutting what he said. I found it refreshing, for the French people were allowed to think for themselves as to what they heard.

These thoughts and suggestions come from an independent voter and former League of Women Voters forum moderator who only wishes for genuinely fair presidential debates. I hope it’s possible to achieve or, at least, improve our current system. America—the collection of candidates, citizens, and political parties—deserves the best we can do to ensure fair and just treatment relating to the highest office in the land.