Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
One rule they had was that if a candidate was mentioned, he got to respond. I think that elevated both Perry and Romney's chances to speak because of all the back and forth between them.
It's not a bad rule, but it could also easily be gamed by a couple of second tier candidates. For example, they could agree to mention each other in every answer, thus giving each a chance to speak.
I don't think it is a terrible idea to give somewhat more emphasis to the clear frontrunners, but it has to be fair. Last night struck me as pretty fair. I believe it was the last debate that struck me as totally unfair.
Ron Paul is a top tier candidate, as he is the only other candidate that routinely polls in double digits (besides Romney and Perry). Having said that, I still believe if you make it to the stage (poll high enough nationally) then you deserve equal time on that stage. If you want to generate back and forth you could move to a format where there are far fewer questions (since we seem to have plenty of debates, they should be easy to spread around) and each and every candidate gets a chance to answer the same question. In fact, I think they should be in a sound proof booth so they cannot hear the other candidate/audience responses. This way, we could find out what each candidate actually believes, irrespective of which way the wind is blowing on stage.
