Midterm election debates

[bedstuy]

Here's the idea: National midterm election debates

Midterm elections get 3 nationally televised debates between representatives from the Republican and Democratic party.  The basic premise of the debate would be, should people vote Democrat or Republican in the upcoming election.  So, imagine a lineup like: Nancy Pelosi vs. John Boehner, John Kerry vs. Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton vs. Rand Paul. 

We all know midterms have around 20% lower voter turnout than Presidential elections.  I wonder if that has anything to do with Presidential debates.  Over 60 million people watch each debate and they always draw great interest.  Would this just fail to replicate the interest and only appeal to people who would vote anyway?  Or, would the competition and national scope create interest?  What do you think of this idea?

[politicallefty]

Here's the idea: National midterm election debates

Midterm elections get 3 nationally televised debates between representatives from the Republican and Democratic party.  The basic premise of the debate would be, should people vote Democrat or Republican in the upcoming election.  So, imagine a lineup like: Nancy Pelosi vs. John Boehner, John Kerry vs. Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton vs. Rand Paul.

Personally, I think it's a great idea, especially the one I emphasized above. (I had actually thought of that idea in 2006, when it would've been Pelosi vs. DeLay.) I think midterm years should absolutely feature some form of Leaders' Debates, particularly between the House Leaders. There's really no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be done.

As for turnout, I suppose there could be a marginal increase. If anything, it could potentially defuse a wave election by increasing base turnout on both sides.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Yes, I definitely agree with doing this.   It could potentially boost more political involvement all around.  Perhaps they could even nationally televise one of the gubernatorial debates, or a debate between the heads of the governors' associations. 

[IceSpear]

Sure, I don't see why not. But it's not as if they'd get as much attention as the presidential debates.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Midterms are a hodge podge of local races. What would be the point? Pat Roberts is not the same as Justin Amash. Natalie Tennent is not the same as Lois Frankel. If most voters won't watch a Scott-Crist debate, why would they watch a national debate between two people unrelated to their own local race?

[bedstuy]

Midterms are a hodge podge of local races. What would be the point? Pat Roberts is not the same as Justin Amash. Natalie Tennent is not the same as Lois Frankel. If most voters won't watch a Scott-Crist debate, why would they watch a national debate between two people unrelated to their own local race?

They go to Washington to vote on bills as an entire Congress though.  People might want to get a refresher on the policy debates between the two parties on the major issues.

I think the bigger point is that it wouldn't generate interest enough to make a difference.  People largely like the debates because it's a chance to see history in the moment.  It's a rare opportunity to possibly see the world change just because someone gets nervous or makes a mistake.  Those stakes make what is often a boring joint press conference actually exciting. 

I think the only solution to the interest problem would be getting the biggest names to participate.  If you could see something like Bill Clinton vs. Sarah Palin, or Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney, people would tune in.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

It would make more sense in a parliamentary system where you're basically just voting for a party and nothing else.

Polarized as we are, our parties are a lot less "disciplined" than those in other countries. It's pointless to have someone choosing between a Tea Party Republican and an Emily's List Democrat watch a debate between, say, Eric Cantor and Random Blue Dog Dem and have that inform their decision.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It would make more sense in a parliamentary system where you're basically just voting for a party and nothing else.

Polarized as we are, our parties are a lot less "disciplined" than those in other countries. It's pointless to have someone choosing between a Tea Party Republican and an Emily's List Democrat watch a debate between, say, Eric Cantor and Random Blue Dog Dem and have that inform their decision.

Our parties are less disciplined than in a purely parliamentary system, but they're a lot more disciplined than they were a couple of decades ago. Consequently, if I'm voting in my district for what will basically a back bench Dem or a back bench Pub, it makes sense to me to think that regardless of character, regardless of how they'll vote on issues, probably the most important vote they'll take is for the leadership. If there's a Republican candidate who agrees with me on every issue (not bloody likely), but he's still going to vote for a Republican Speaker of the House, then I'm better off voting for a reprobate Democrat.

[politicallefty]

Our parties are less disciplined than in a purely parliamentary system, but they're a lot more disciplined than they were a couple of decades ago. Consequently, if I'm voting in my district for what will basically a back bench Dem or a back bench Pub, it makes sense to me to think that regardless of character, regardless of how they'll vote on issues, probably the most important vote they'll take is for the leadership. If there's a Republican candidate who agrees with me on every issue (not bloody likely), but he's still going to vote for a Republican Speaker of the House, then I'm better off voting for a reprobate Democrat.

I think that's exactly right. I don't live in CA-12, but my vote for the US House is one for a Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If I were voting on a Senate race this, it'd be a vote for Harry Reid, even though I do not live in Nevada. Senate races may still be somewhat based on personalities, but House races have more and more become proxies for the parties. Split-ticket voting for the House in 2012 was at its lowest point since 1920. Party control is all-important in the House and the Speaker holds considerable power (more so under some individuals as opposed to others). Let Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner go on primetime television and make their case for party control before the American people.

[muon2]

Our parties are less disciplined than in a purely parliamentary system, but they're a lot more disciplined than they were a couple of decades ago. Consequently, if I'm voting in my district for what will basically a back bench Dem or a back bench Pub, it makes sense to me to think that regardless of character, regardless of how they'll vote on issues, probably the most important vote they'll take is for the leadership. If there's a Republican candidate who agrees with me on every issue (not bloody likely), but he's still going to vote for a Republican Speaker of the House, then I'm better off voting for a reprobate Democrat.

I think that's exactly right. I don't live in CA-12, but my vote for the US House is one for a Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If I were voting on a Senate race this, it'd be a vote for Harry Reid, even though I do not live in Nevada. Senate races may still be somewhat based on personalities, but House races have more and more become proxies for the parties. Split-ticket voting for the House in 2012 was at its lowest point since 1920. Party control is all-important in the House and the Speaker holds considerable power (more so under some individuals as opposed to others). Let Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner go on primetime television and make their case for party control before the American people.

This shows how much more politically savvy you are compared to the great majority of voters. Leaders do set an agenda, and if you are most concerned with the way the big issues are handled then this is a decent strategy. However, in defense of those who vote for their local candidate, there are good reasons. The local representative is responsible for getting government to act on local issues. That includes issues that need special legislation, budget accommodation, and most frequently action by agencies. Constituent service from a district office is important to a lot of voters, and there's a wide range of response from different elected officials. The elected representative has to act as ombudsman as much as voting delegate.