Do you think it is a good idea to not allow applause during political debates?

Oh, I don’t know. It’s evidence of how well the candidate can pack the debate with his supporters.

Then again, it might be misleading as to how much support someone has outside the hall.

But it seems to me that all’s fair in love and politics, these days. And I don’t really give a shit about the republican primaries. Every single one of those candidates will set this country back ten years. I don’t understand why anyone still supports that party platform. They live in some alternate universe it seems to me.

@wundayatta I don’t give much of a damn about the Republican primaries either, I meant all debates, including when the Republicans get their guy and go up against Obama.

Yes, I do. I’ve rarely seen an audience of undecided voters, so each side’s supporters distort an objective weighing of what is being said. And the audiences in the first dozen debates were so obnoxious they brought out the worst in the candidates.

Laughter, applause, or even boos are instant feedback for the speaker. There’s nothing worse than telling a joke and having the audience sit there straight faced. I see no problem with allowing the audience to react to the statements made. Otherwise the only feedback they get is when the pundits put their spin on it afterwards.

Yes.

It shouldn’t be allowed. It allows people other than the candidate himself to influence the impact of the candidate’s words.

TV producers figured out long ago that sitcom jokes seem funnier if you provide a laugh-track. They hire professional laughers with infectious laughs to influence how we perceive the quality of the jokes. This works, no matter how sophisticated we may think we are.

Hearing a few people in an audience hoot and holler in support of a candidate’s statement will make that statement seem more valid. I think the statement should have to stand on its own merits. It will also encourage candidates to appeal to the reactionary fringe of the audience, since that will likely draw the most enthusiastic response. As if we needed more polarization.

If they were actually serious debates, yes. But they’re not, so it doesn’t matter. If you watch a real debate (like Intelligence Squared or an official debate at a college or something), there is no applause. The time is supposed to be spent with the person stating their arguments uninterrupted.

And how many times has this happened during the GOP debates: “Ah yes, you’ve reminded me that I’ve dodged/avoided the original question, so please let me finally get to that by saying something else completely unrelated…...”

Here’s an analogy I think we can all relate to: You’re looking through a Fluther thread and you come across a post that says something like “Woohoo! @so_and_so really nailed it! GA!”. I’ll bet that many people will go back, reread @so_and_so ‘s post and view it more favorably. I’ve seen this many times. It doesn’t, of course make @so_and_so’s post any better, but it definitely improves its impact. And the kind of posts that are most likely to draw that kind of seconding will not tend to be the more nuanced ones, right?

@thorninmud When someone says “so-and-so nailed it,” it has the opposite effect on me. I hate that term (nailed it), and so I am much less likely to go look at it with an endorsement of such a simpering sort.

With applause, I tend to use that as a meter of how biased the audience is. I make my judgement of the politician’s comments, and then based on audience response, I can tell how jingoistic they are. Laughter on sitcoms leaves me similarly cold. I very rarely find things funny, so when I do laugh, I know something is really funny. Usually, when I’m in an audience, I’ll laugh half a beat before everyone else or I won’t laugh at all. This is not on purpose (how could it be?). It’s just the way my mind works.

Sometimes I am laughing alone, but not often. Usually I’m the one who starts the laughter. I pretty much follow my own opinion these days. All this practice on fluther has helped me stop worrying about whether people agree with me or not.

If people are influenced by applause, then it seems to me it won’t help them think for themselves by taking applause away. They are still going to go out and find out what others tell them to do before they slit their wrists vote for Gingrich. In the overall scheme of things, I don’t think it will matter whether applause is allowed or not.

@wundayatta No, I really wouldn’t expect that you would be very susceptible to that kind of influence. You’re not one to take your cues from others.

I think they should keep it natural and if the audience want to applaud let them. As long as the audience is balanced it shouldn’t matter.
PS I like the term ‘nailed it’ but only the first time I heard it. Now I can’t stand it.

Of course it should be allowed.

If you don’t want the audience to respond then have the debates without an audience.

I would like to see the effects of it not being allowed… Just for a few elections!!! See what historians and political scientists have to say about it!