Let's make presidential debates even better

The Republican presidential candidate debate earlier this month on the Fox News Channel captured the attention of Americans more than any debate since the great "Flame Broiling vs. Frying" fast-food conflict of the 1980s.

The reason was obvious: Donald Trump. The former United States Football League team owner brought drama and theatrics to the television show.

It was riveting, like watching a speeding car veer dangerously close to a cliff.

The next Republican debate is in mid-September and we'll see a steady stream of the gabfests between now and the 2016 election. Unfortunately, they'll almost assuredly return to their normal (boring) state: Overprepared politicians regurgitating prepackaged pablum, hoping to avoid a mistake.

Boring!

Since debates have been that way for decades (since Richard Nixon somehow looked "shady" and "unsavory" in the 1960 debates with John F. Kennedy), I say it's time to change them up. Debates have momentum – people talked about politics for days after the Cleveland GOP showdown.

Let's keep it going. Let's make presidential debates must-see TV, which will then make the electorate more "informed" and will make the general election next November the biggest TV and Internet event since the early "American Idol" finales.

This could be as big as Clay vs. Ruben!

Here are some suggestions. The networks and candidates should feel free to use any or all of them.

Add shock collars. These can be used to stop politicians from using buzzwords and to force them to answer questions. They can still make their points, they just can't fall back on pat phrases. For instance, candidates who say "entitlements" or "corporate welfare" will be shocked. Live. On camera. And if they don't at least address a question within 30 seconds, they get a jolt. I'd watch!

Add other contests. Wouldn't it be interesting if part way through the debate, the contestants had to compete in the 100-yard dash or the 50-yard backstroke? What about if there was a singing competition? Or a freestyle rap battle, with the crowd picking the winner? The ability to be physically fit, entertaining and perform under pressure is crucial in a president. Let's test them and add to the show . . . er, debate.

Reality-show-style voting. Copy the reality shows and let America vote. But this time, it really is "America," not millions of teenage girls. At occasional intervals, a website could open for voting (Twitter and Facebook could join in) and the viewers vote. Finish last in a round and you're out of the debate, winnowing the field until there are just two people left for the final question.

Duplicate "Russian Roulette." The early 2000s game show had a floor that would suddenly drop from beneath a contestant after a wrong answer, which is what we do with politicians. In the middle of the debate, the moderator would ask a surprise question ("What is the capital of North Dakota? Who is the political leader of Turkey? Who sang the 1980 hit song "Pop Muzik"?) and candidates who get it wrong risk disappearing from the stage, mid-debate. As an alternative, include all the earlier suggestions in this column and simply have the person voted out drop from view, via the trap door.

I'd watch. And so would you.

This could be the best thing for American politics since Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tildon in the 1876 election, which most observers credited to Hayes besting Tildon in a series of wrestling matches.

Say . . . I've got another idea!

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.