Presidential debate format isn’t working

The only thing better about the latest presidential debate was having fewer people on the stage. Other than that, the evening was, for the most part, a rehash of the candidates’ previously stated positions, an upright tweet-fest. It is time to reformat presidential debates — if not to junk the existing model, then at least to experiment with more edifying alternatives.

Presidential debates are supposed to provide voters with a better understanding of a candidate’s views and how he or she would likely govern. Of course, if you think the job of the president is to make short, snappy decisions without consulting others and without examining all the pros and cons, then the existing debate format probably suits you. If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test.

Smart and successful problem-solving involves considering all the consequences and consulting with others. It is not demonstrated by one’s ability to instantly react to a surprise question with a one-minute answer. After all, no one walks into the Oval Office and says, “Mr. President, you have sixty seconds to address the North Korean nuclear weapons program that has been active for 30 years and has bedeviled the last three presidents for all eight years of their respective terms. The clock starts now.” If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter,

why do we test our candidates as if it does?

If I were a debate moderator, three days in advance, I would supply the candidates with a series of identical, fact-based problem scenarios. These scenarios would relate to real issues facing the United States — such as health care, infrastructure, Iran, North Korea, climate change or cyberwarfare. Candidates would consider how to respond to the scenario, they could consult with advisers and arrive at the debate with a (hopefully) workable solution.

By the way, if candidates are given the questions in advance, no one should object to appearing at a debate. Yes, we might hear canned answers, and candidates would have the benefit of having been able to consult with advisers, but what would look like “cheating” in the context of a take-home exam is akin to real-life governing.

Viewers would have the benefit of being able to compare candidates’ responses to the same scenario. And because the questions would not flit from subject to subject, there would be more ability to test the quality of candidates’ thinking. The presidential hopefuls would be required to describe how they had arrived at their approach, explain how it might be achieved and outline the potential consequences.

The role of the panelists would be to press the participants, politely but repeatedly, on the feasibility of their proposals. How do you get this done with a divided Congress? How will you pay for it? What if our allies refuse to go along? What constitutes an act of war? In addition, candidates would have the chance to question rivals about their proposed solutions, giving viewers insights into how the candidates think on their feet and the depth of their analyses.

This format would inhibit a candidate’s ability to promise free college, Medicare-for-all and a tax increase only on billionaires — all to be magically approved by a Republican-controlled Senate — then have the time clock go off and everyone move on to trade policy. It would force candidates to switch from defending, say, their 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq, to explaining whether and in what circumstances they would deploy troops there in 2022.

This is by no means the only solution or way forward. I’d prefer a range of debate formats, similar to how real-world job interviews are conducted. Perhaps we should have retired generals and admirals engage the candidates in conversations about defense policy. Or retired corporate executives ask questions about regulation and budgeting. If we want better outcomes in Washington, we must change the vetting process for how our presidents get there.

Greta Van Susteren is anchor of Gray TV’s Full Court Press and Voice of America’s Plugged In. She wrote this for the Washington Post.