Let's Replace Debates with Jeopardy

By having political candidates compete in a game of Jeopardy rather than a traditional debate, voters would learn more about who is and isn't suitable for office.

Dear Readers,

Politics is a serious business, yet it is often not treated as such by media and voters. Candidates for office are frequently judged based on soundbites, on whether voters would like to have a beer with them, and of course on looks. No-one seems to think that this is a good thing, but no-one seems to know how to fix it. How can we change the political environment into one in which voters evaluate candidates based on their competence, rather than on catchy slogans and million-dollar smiles?

The answer, in one word, is Jeopardy.

I love debating. I was a member of my university’s debate team as a PhD student. But presidential debates, and debates between political candidates in general, are highly overrated. To win a debate, it’s far more important for a candidate to have a few great lines that go viral, than it is for them to actually understand the duties of the office they are seeking, and the laws, constitution and history of the country they wish to govern.

That would not be the case in a game of Jeopardy.

Imagine two presidential candidates playing Jeopardy to demonstrate that they have the brains necessary to lead the nation. You can imagine categories like “The Constitution”, “U.S. history”, “Economics”, “Supreme Court”, “Presidential duties” etc.

Here’s how it might play out:

Candidate #1: “I’ll take ‘The constitution’ for $200”.

Host: “For $200, the answer is ‘According to the tenth amendment, the federal government may not do this’. What is the question?”

Candidate #1: “What is usurp powers from the states that are not specifically delegated to it by the constitution?”

Host: “Correct” (turns to other candidate) “What will it be now?”

Candidate #2: “I’ll take ‘Supreme Court’ for $800”

Host: “For $800, the answer is ‘Public school students have these rights according to the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ruling from 1969”

Candidate #2: “Can I use a lifeline?”

Host: “There are no lifelines because this is Presidential Jeopardy, not ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire?’. Your time is up, and the question we were looking for was ‘What are free speech rights?’”

The possibilities are endless, and the candidates’ performance would tell us a lot more about how ready for office they are than any debate ever would. One candidate may for example know a lot about economics, but almost nothing about the limits of the powers of the office he or she is seeking. Another may know a lot of Supreme Court cases, but not have a clue in which continent China is located.

Ideally Jeopardy contests would be held between candidates in the primaries as well, to allow voters to weed out the airheads before the general election.

Jeopardy would give political candidates a strong incentive to study the kind of topics they really should know about: If they don’t, they might make fools out of themselves on live TV when it’s time to play Jeopardy against their opponents.

At the same time, Jeopardy would also be highly educational for voters, who likely won’t know many of the answers (well, questions). In the example above one question concerned a Supreme Court case involving free speech. If this were to play out in reality, chances are a lot of viewers would google the case and inadvertently learn more about free speech, and the landmark SCOTUS cases that have determined what free speech is and who is entitled to it. Others might google the tenth amendment and learn about federalism. Replacing - or at least complementing - debates with Jeopardy would in other words lead to better-educated voters and candidates.

Some may counter that politicians don’t have to know everything, and that advisers and congressional staffers exist to fill any “knowledge gaps”. While I agree no politician can be expected to be an expert on everything, I still believe it to be reasonable to expect elected officials to have a decent understanding of civics. If they don’t, they deserve to be exposed, and this is something Jeopardy would take care of.

Besides, if politics has to be like show business, we might as well get a good game show out of it, right?

Thanks for reading. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to the Hepatica.

Sincerely,
John Gustavsson, PhD