@PA Ram made a good point.
The founding fathers put in place a system that HEAVILY relied on its citizens being vigilantly participatory. Checks and Balances! Democracy is the hardest system of self-governance because it constantly requires maintenance by the citizenry. Hence the government OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People...
The problem now is that about half of the citizens of this country want NO PART of our democracy. I could go into the numbers of eligible voters vote in Presidential elections, but it's depressingly low. Since 1972, the percentage hadn't been above 55% until 2004 when it was 55.7% and in 2008, it peaked at 57.4 before coming down to 54.9% in 2012.
Barely half of our electorate wants to participate in the process and that's inclusive of the expansion of voting rights access (well, except lately when that's been attacked under the guise of voter fraud). The point being that beyond that when it comes to non-Presidential national elections, state and local elections, the turnouts are even worse.
And when it comes to other civic duties like jury duty, people can't run away fast enough. We all want a working judiciary and we want the smartest, most deliberative jurors possible should we ever be accused of a crime, but if we're ever called? It's pretty bad.
I've asked the question about whether we should still have democracy anymore or if we should pick a system that fits what we can actually live with. I'm not advocating for anything, but 55% turnout doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement. And no, I'm not for a Brazilian style mandatory voting because that causes a different set of problems.
I mean, the founding fathers built us a big ol' barn of a house, but it's the kind of house the requires a ton of maintenance. Almost half of the people in the house have no desire whatsoever to maintain the house at all. But we still need some kind of shelter. We've tried remodeling here and there and we constantly tinker, but we're not committed to making democracy work. And because of that lack of commitment, there are those who can and do take advantage of that and those who are taken advantage of. It's not what was intended.
And this pertains to the debates because at some point a candidate has to point the finger back at the people and ask the question back, "what government are you willing to work for?" We need some form of self-governance. No one wants a dystopian nightmare. The question is how to do it....and I don't profess to have the answer.
There's a reason OF the People and BY the People comes before FOR the People. That much I do know.
WE are the government, not these spokesmodels and entertainers posing as politicians.
I'd love for the debates on either side to really speak to the issues or rally the electorate to want to participate as was intended or to at the very least make clear where the candidates stand. Even that's pie in the sky fantasy.
The debates have become reality tv and we're all losers for that. Anyone remember Carter debating Reagan? I do. And maybe that's the problem. I have short term memory issues, but I remember. I remember that it wasn't always like this...it wasn't always this vapid and stupid and short-sighted.
I dunno. I watched part of the debates and I just couldn't do it. I remember William F Buckley, Jr and Noam Chomsky and watching The Dick Cavett Show when he'd have a politician on. It's a circus now and while I love the smell of popcorn... I'm just sick of the smell of elephant and donkey crap.
Sorry to hijack the thread, but this just felt like "the same ol' Disco" and I had this overwhelming urge to jump in with some Disco Demolition. I apologize if my Steve Dahl moment caused any damage...
But honestly, I've tried to stop drinking those poisons although the urge wins out every once in a while, especially when up north and they don't serve sweet tea. What in the hell is wrong with you Yankees? 
