Spending on the U.S. Presidential race surpassed 1 billion dollars for the first time in 2004, with combined spending on the presidential, U.S. Congressional and U.S. Senate races eclipsing the 4 billion dollar mark. For all of this spending, the American people know very little about what their elected leaders intend to do with their new-found power. This is a direct result of the way in which information is transferred from the elected to the electorate in the 21^st century.

Presidential candidates spent roughly half of that 1 billion dollars on television advertising in 2004. Television commercials — like radio commercials — rarely exceed 1 minute in length. There isn't a whole lot of detail that can be conveyed to the listener in such a short period of time. It will take roughly 5 minutes to read this article or any other standard length opinion article in a newspaper.

The debates between two candidates were once used to overcome a lack of detail in other types of media. In the Lincoln-Douglas Senatorial debates of 1858, the candidate who spoke first (which was decided by a coin toss at the first debate) was allowed to address the audience for 1 hour. His opponent was then allowed to speak for 90 minutes after which the first candidate could speak again for 30 minutes. The first speaker was alternated at successive debates. The candidates posed questions to each other. The newspapermen of the day did not presume to be an important part of the debate process. Debates were for politicians, not journalists. Only a timekeeper was used to advise candidates when their time was up, and this was done in a low-key and respectful manner.

The candidates themselves had to write down the questions they were asked by their opponent, because they were not allowed to interrupt the opposing speaker with more than a single-sentence request for clarification. Abraham Lincoln was physically pulled from the stage by other Republicans when he disobeyed this rule and started commenting during Judge Douglas' speech in the first debate. The crowd knew the rules and didn't like Lincoln's tactics. His brashness worked against him, and his Republican friends knew it. Lincoln never again broke the rules.

The generous amount of time given to each speaker allowed the candidates to review various pieces of legislation in detail, giving their opinions on why they agreed or disagreed with it, while outlining in detail what they proposed to do in the future and posing difficult questions to their opponent in the process. It is widely agreed that the "slam-dunk" question which won Lincoln these debates was posed by him to Judge Douglas in the second debate held in Freeport, Illinois when Lincoln asked, "Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?". If Douglas answered yes, the pro-slavery forces would abandon him. If he answered no, he would lose the anti-slavery vote. If he tried to skirt the question, Lincoln would have ample time to call him on it. The question was crafted so cleverly and the amount of debate time was so generous that there was no way out.

Douglas decided to answer yes to this question, and although he went on to win the 1858 Senatorial race that was the subject of these seven debates, when the presidential election of 1860 rolled around, fellow Democrats remembered his "Freeport Doctrine". The antagonism in his party over this issue was so severe that the Democrats split into two conventions in 1860 and nominated two candidates for president. With the anti-slavery Northern Democrats voting for Douglas and the pro-slavery Southern Democrats voting for Breckinridge (the other Democrat), Lincoln was able to win the presidency as a Third Party candidate with 59% of the electoral vote even though he wasn't on the ballot in ten southern states. The North went for Lincoln all the way. Judge Douglas only won electoral votes from one state (Missouri). And all of this can be traced back to a debate process that allowed candidates to define their positions in detail.

Some may say that this is an excellent argument for not allowing candidates to detail their positions on the issues, but this contention will not stand up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny. Americans need to know more about the positions of their elected leaders. This will never happen with TV commentators interjecting themselves into the debate process and arbitrarily limiting the responses of candidates to anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes so that they (the commentators) become a more important factor in the debate process.

We need to get back to the Lincoln-Douglas style of debating where the candidates detail their positions, ask their opponents questions, and have ample time to do it. Will the American public in the 21^st century tolerate a 90 minute talk by a single candidate during a debate? Probably not without falling asleep. It is unfortunate that all of the modern types of media have conditioned us for shorter and shorter attention spans. My estimation is that a modern-day Lincoln-Douglas debate would need to start off with no more than a 20 minute talk by the first candidate followed by a 30 minute talk by his opponent and a 10 minute finale by the first speaker. Even so, the amount of detail which would be conveyed in several of these debates would far eclipse anything possible in the sound-byte limited, talking head moderated debates we're stuck with today.

When more than two candidates are involved in the debates (as well they should be), this type of debate can easily be modified to give each speaker an equal allotment of time. For example, even though you saw only two presidential candidates on TV for the 2004 debates, there were a total of five who were on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the electoral vote. If all five were put on stage at the same time for a debate, each candidate could easily start with a 5-minute opener in which to ask questions to the other candidates, followed by 14 minutes in which to answer questions and 5 minutes to close. Alternatively, three 8-minute periods could be used. That's nearly a half-hour for each candidate, and the total debate time is extended from one hour to two hours. It need not increase by a factor of five. Several of these debates would prove to be very instructive, I'm sure.

The American people need to re-gain control over their air waves, which are used to transmit our presidential debates. As mentioned last month, the Federal Communications Commission needs to instruct the Commission on Presidential Debates that it may not use polling data to determine whether candidates will be invited to participate in presidential debates. The only objective criteria is to discern which candidates — including write-in candidates — are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the electoral vote. This, coupled with the Constitutional eligibility requirements should be the only prerequisites. If you agree with this, send an e-mail to FCC Chairman Michael Powell and let him know about it. His e-mail address is Michael.Powell@fcc.gov.

While you're at it, you might suggest that we need to eliminate moderators from the debate process and get back to a Lincoln-Douglas style of debating, or just refer him to this article. It might just do some good.