I have an old, but abandoned idea for presidential debates. They used to be done like this a century, two centuries ago, but not since the coming of age of media and television. It's very simple: Lose the moderator[s]. It is obvious to me, and has been for several election cycles [I've seen a few]. The moderator, typically being a media type, is becoming unashamedly biased. In the first Trump/Biden debate, Trump recognized that he was in a 2-on-1 debate. I know a little bit about that. Chris Wallace was a disgrace. Savannah Guthrie wasn't much better. It is the evidence of weakness on the heavy side, that the added weight is deemed necessary, and in this particular case, badly needed by that side.
A secondary reason: why do moderators think they have to pontificate a question with background information. Just ask the bloody question! They take up as much time as the debate participants. These people act like they've never been on TV before, and want all the time. Better to just eliminate the problem instead of making them shut-up but for a posed question without the fluff. Instead, let the participants ask questions of each other, any subject, no prior notice to either one. That way, they are truly held to thinking on their feet; the way it should. That's how negotiation with other world leaders goes, why not in their pre-election debates.
