why is there a live audience for the debates?

[onenote]

Apart from the Town Hall style debate, that is. The agreement specifically precludes the networks from showing the audience from the moment the first question is posed until the end of the last closing statement. Moreover, the audience is to be instructed not to applaud, cheer, or otherwise be demonstrative during the debate and if that rule is broken (and it will be) the moderator is supposed to stop and instruct the crowd that its against the rules.

Under the circumstances,what is the point of having a live audience. It only invites mischief since even if its against the "rules" the Bushies in the audience will cheer (or boo) statements and that will encourage the Kerry supporters to do the same.

onenote

[Julien Sorel]

1. Tradition?

[onenote]

2. only since 1976

I'm pretty sure that the first time that there was a live audience for a presidential debate was 1976.

onenote

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. So Bush's CANF buddies in Miami

Can disrupt the debate if Bush starts to get in trouble.

[llywrch]

4. It's a Legal Fiction

The problem with having debates between presidential candidates is that everyone wants to get involved -- not only 3rd party candidates who arguably should be included (something I'll leave for others to argue about), but conceivably every wingnut & blowhard out there who is willing to declare her or his candidacy in order to talk about his or her pet peeve. At the time, the networks were bound by the rule that they had to provide equal access to every point of view -- so allowing the Democrats & Republicans to present their views meant that anyone on the ballot for president could sue to be included in the debate.

(Don't laugh, it has happened: a street preacher here in Oregon would run for various offices or support various measures for the obvious reason of getting his Bible-quoting rants into the state Voter's Pamphlet & front of a large audience. His argument in favor of legalizing Marijuana (consisting of one short paragraph in favor, & several long, rambling paragraphs quoting Scripture about something I never bothered to finish reading about) was reprinted in harper's Magazine.)

To deal with this problem, the networks, the 2 major parties, & the League of Women Voters (who sponsored the original debates) came up with the idea that the LVW would sponsor a number of debates between candidates they invited -- which, being news, the networks would then broadcast without worrying about providing equal access to anyone else.

I believe this is why an audience is still included, even today. And anyone with the money or the backing to sue to get included (e.g. Perot back in 1992), is simply placated by being included.

Geoff

[JI7]

5. personally i wish there was no audience

[goodhue]

6. props

[dave123williams]

7. Spontaneous gasps at Bush's idiocy to be anticipated...

Laughter might also seep in, depending on the laughable shit he says...