The CNN/YouTube presidential debate, in which voters submitted online videos with questions for the Democratic candidates, was praised in some quarters as the most earthshaking change in communication technology for presidential politics since the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. So says the New York Times editorial page today. I am not really feeling the shaking beneath my feet but hey the questions came from… online… you know… the internets… the tubes? Looks like the Times seems to feel the same way. But the format was still basically the same one that’s been used for nearly 50 years: candidates standing on a stage, answering questions selected by the news media during a made-for-television broadcast. The rest of the op-ed asks various experts for their opinion on what a real “new media” debate would be. I was not really satisfied with some of the answers others I like a lot. So I thought I would let the minds of vdov readers turn it over for a while and see if we could come up with anything better.

Kevin Kelley

is a Wired editor and runs the website Cool Tools (which is awesome… and seriously if the NYT mentions a contributor runs a website don’t you think they could link the name of the website to the actual website?)

He wants candidates to do something similar to Justin Kan and wire candidates for sound and video 24/7 to really get a look at what they are like.

Pros: Its interesting to see candidates behind the scenes and right now that usually does not happen unless a candidate is accidentally on camera when they think they are not.

Cons: No candidate would ever submit to this and if they did I would question their sanity. Its kind of creepy. With news coverage being what it is their lives are already most of the way to this.

Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry

are the founders of Tech President.

They want video questions from “the people” chosen by “the people” with untimed video responses by candidates and the ability to comment and debate associated with each video. With the ability for the people to grade each response.

Pros: It hits at the two-way nature of the internet. I would love to see what video questions would get voted up rather than picked by new editors. I like the idea of candidates being able to be called out for evading questions because that is the most annoying part of normal presidential debates.

Cons There is an enormous potential for this kind of system to be spammed and/or gamed. There is a thin line between the “wisdom of the crowd” and “mob rule.” If this turns into a digg.com of politics I would have to shoot someone. Also, “grading answers” is a little strange considering there is not necessarily an objective correct answer a candidate could give. It seems that it would end up just being arbitrary and based on too many conflicting factors.

David All

is the president of a Republican consulting firm that helps candidates develop new-media strategies.

He wants to have “community” involvement not just before and after a debate but during the debate. There would be a mechanism for viewers at home and on line to call in, text, click internet buttons, or whatever to indicate whether they thought a candidate evaded an answer. Then if a majority said there was evasion then the candidate would be re-asked.

Pros: I think this is my second favorite because it is the simplest and takes care of my number one annoyance. It doesn’t easily let mob rule happen and it would be fairly unobtrusive.

Cons: It could easily fall in to a state where everyone just votes yes and candidates get re-asked every question. You would have to play with the threshold required for a re-ask.

Tom Brokaw

is a special correspondent for NBC News and the former anchor and managing editor of “NBC Nightly News.”

Mr. Brokaw comes up with a great idea that has nothing to do with “new media.” He basically wants to get the candidates drunk and have them answer questions over their cell phone or BlackBerry (what no iPhone?).

Pros: Drunk candidates.

Cons: While the idea of a drunk Hilary Clinton berating me over the phone seems intriguing I have no idea why this is new media related… this could have happened 10 years ago. Drunk candidates. Also Tom Brokaw came up with it.

Matt Bai

is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and the author of “The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.” (I have read some good things about this book, even people that don’t agree with its overall message seem to think it has some good insight into intra-party politics. It has definitely been interpreted quite differently by different reviewers.)

Basically Bai wants to have a little IM window open that shows text that every candidate writes as each candidate speaks. This allows candidates to comment on whomever is speaking as they speak without interrupting. This is probably my other second favorite suggestion.

Pros: This could very easily be implemented and could add a certain amount of hilarity to the event. It would also give the candidates a real chance to use their claws. This would be best for the actual presidential debates after the primary I think. Also it might be the only time in history that presidential touch typing skills and mastery of l33t would be an important issue.

Cons: This has the potential to be pretty disruptive especially if one candidate was particularly hilarious. It could also be a little unserious for presidential debates.

Zephyr Teachout

is a law professor at Duke University who was the director of online organizing for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign

This is by far my favorite idea and shows a real understanding of how to wield “web 2.0″ principles usefully. He wants to have a day long debate marathon where each candidate pairs off against the others one-on-one. Then the videos are licensed in a way that allows remixing etc (I would prefer straight public domain, no restrictions). That way the discussion can continue at any number of levels uninhibited by the shortage of network TV time.

Pros: Having a single marathon day for debates would get people excited. The ability to watch each candidate square off against other individually seems much better than 1 minute canned speeches one after the other. The length of the day might wear down candidates a little and get them to open up a little. Also this is the most “web 2.0″ of the ideas. This way the data would be out there and then the machinery and people of the internet could just have at it.

Cons It seems that it would appeal to people who follow politics but might be a little too much for the casual observer (although the ability to cut and remix the video would mean highlight reels could be easily made). Also with that much verbiage in one day I would be afraid it would devolve into highlight reels of “gotcha moments” (although with their proliferation on the web you would end up with some good analysis and it would just be a matter of finding it). This would also be the most difficult to organize.

So those are the ideas.

I like Teachout’s idea the best and it could very easily be combined with the “live” ideas of Bai and All. Basically the real problem with the debates is that they have become staged, one time shots with canned answers and evasion of any kind of meaningful controversy. I really like the idea of one-on-one debates and making the footage available to the public without restriction. I would extend Teachout’s idea to include a central debate webpage with all the footage and pages for candidates to clarify, respond, and spin after the debate as well as a general forum for analysis with a Slashdot style moderation system for comments. The idea of a one day marathon is also intriguing in that it has the possibility of really engaging the general public and generating some excitement. This format also has room for expansion if it is successful. Imagine whittling down the candidates a little and having the top contenders from each party square off. It might be too much but it would give people an idea of how each candidate handles people that don’t generally agree with them on the big issues.

The “new media” or “web 2.0″ approach definitely has the ability to draw the candidates into meaningful debate and get them to say a few things that they actually mean. Teachout recognizes this in his idea,

The Internet doesn’t just enable cool avatars and the shorter form. It also allows the deeper form: cross-linked blog posts, extensive research, simultaneous screens and raw debate footage that anyone can scan online, at any time. New media are not constrained by the scarcity of TV network time.

Yet also recognizes the weakness in the “new media” approach. Which is the devolving of debate into digg-like “shouting matches” with nothing more substantive than rounded corners and AJAX. If done right you could get a Wikipedia if done wrong you get digg.

Any more ideas from the vdov community?