In US's big presidential fields, who gets how much debate time?

Attention on 'top tier' candidates in this week's debates prompts calls for a more evenhanded format.

from the June 7, 2007 edition

Page 3 of 3

Page 1 | Page 2 | 3

"I give them credit for using their judgment, but it sent a signal: Only pay attention to the center of the stage," says Dr. Sabado. "It's damaging to the network. They need to realize that viewers believe they have hidden preferences."

What kind of format would better serve voters?

Sabado suggests scheduling a series of debates, with only four or five candidates at each one, and the candidates at each one selected by a lottery system. He'd also like to see candidates ask questions of other candidates.

Dr. Pitney at Claremont McKenna College concurs that presidential debates with fewer candidates would be more revealing and would lead to much more information for voters.

"The campaign itself may solve the [debates] problem," he adds, as candidates drop out and the fields winnow.

Mike Biundo, a senior adviser to the Thompson campaign, feels Tuesday's debate was "very unfair as far as the time allotment," but says there's not much to be done about it.

For lesser-known candidates like Mr. Thompson, the answer is grass-roots campaigning in New Hampshire, he suggests.

"We're sitting in the first-in-the-nation primary state that prides itself on the ability of all candidates have access ... to voters," says Mr. Biundo.

1 | 2 | Page 3