How effective are debates in choosing leaders?

THE EDITOR, Dear Madam:

After watching the United States presidential election debate on June 27, I was struck by some fundamental flaws in how we choose our leaders, particularly the president of the United States. It seems absurd to think that we can measure a person’s capacity to lead by having them compete in a debate.

Let’s examine this process: we put two people on stage, limit their time to think about questions that are randomly generated, and give them an unreasonable amount of time to answer. This approach prioritises style over substance. How can we judge a person’s ability to lead based on how well they answer a few questions in a limited time frame and how they present themselves, including their attire and the strength of their voice?

Moreover, it’s baffling that well-educated individuals in our society endorse this process. Where is our critical thinking? In my view, there is no correlation between the ability to debate and the ability to govern. We already have documented evidence of these two men’s performance in their roles: one is a decent, law-abiding individual with a record of achievement, while the other’s performance is less than adequate. Yet, people are panicking and doubting whether the person who lost the debate, but has a better track record, can handle the job. Am I the only one to think that this is the real world?

CARLTON FEARON

Mandeville, Manchester

clarendonlube@yahoo.com