That is Rawls is about getting broad consensus for something that is more a moral value than an objective fact. i.e. Rawls is looking for broad agreement on principle. The more procedural/technocratic camp hammers out objective questions of law and fact first. I think you might get some of them to sign off on the french system.

On the other hand I think some of the “Rawlsian” technocrats would be the most likely to disagree with this system. On the one hand there is a “New York Minute” (and the debate was in New York.) So there is the potentiality for a phenomenology of time that a Rawlsian (an extremely patient/philosophical moderator) is willing to consider. What if the independent in New York is turned on by candidates following the culture and speaking fast, while the fella from Missouri is put off by such a tempo? (should these habits of thinking be the material element that downs out or exists along side the subject matter itself?)

The Rawlsian returns as many times as necessary to a hypothetical veil of ignorance, to do so on only one front would be to ignore the latent inequalities. (It is possible they just like billable hours…so say the New York Minute technocrats.) (In fact time as money is a big question within the “meta” of mediation… The Rawlsian mediator typically will not bill by the hour.)

For example: Rather than agreeing on overall time.

Behind a veil of ignorance one would want the questions asked to both candidates to be of similar difficulty. Presumably with time allocated to the difficulty of the question.

Might it not be unfair to allow a candidate to dismiss the difficulty of a given question, brush over it as if it was a softball with an grin…and move on to deploy his time most effectively in a sudden burst of power?

For example one could immagine candidate A:

Each Candidate 3 questions:

Lighting round(binary…short answer): Yes, No. 10 seconds 100 questions.

2 Softball 3 minutes.
2 Mid 5 minutes.
1 complex 10 minutes.

While in such a format you could measure “time”…. But couldn’t a candidate answer all the questions as softballs, or even lighting round one liners…and save up for a “money” speech at the end?

So a position on say no carry-over-minutes isn’t a single road-trip behind a veil of ignorance. (unless of course the moderator who is trying to use a Rawlsian system is charging by the hour…in which case he might get sued by the technocrats for malpractice, and the entire effort does not work).

Of course if the moderator or lawyer is charging enough per hour…it does act as a pretty big stick for talking fast.

So the issue for Justice as fairness is something more like this.

Not all questions are favorable in terms of softballs and roses for all candidates. Some questions should make the candidate sweat a bit. A moderator that allows for smooth transitions and escapes (allows the candidate to “cherry pick” time-use.)

“will let the fact checker dig up the exact figures and then run the percentages, but by any measure it adds up overall to a very considerable advantage for the Democrats. One could even “price” it: how much would someone have to pay for a minute of airtime with an audience of over 50 million viewers?”

We agree to let this in as relevant. But note that the question of who the extra airtime favors is black and white, but not a one stop shop argument (that is this factor is not fungible/alienable on this nexis).

For example we submit the Romney “gaffe” concerning the 47%. Certainly this is Romney airtime with an audience, but it has an objective economic value that has been purchased by Obama. We also stipulate that Obama had a negative economic return on his so called “free-adversing” first debate.

The principle of no-carry over minutes thus means no ability to cherry pick, and understanding when silence (and giving away airtime minute) is preferable than stepping it in it. The principle of no-carry over minutes also comports logically with the federal rule of evidence concerning the presumption of guilt when no refutation is given.

For various reasons I don’t think the Rawlsians would take such a view of time.

So underbidding your bad minutes (by remaining silent/softballing your difficult questions), and building up minutes for your strong suit (as might be allowed under the french system) is generally discouraged as cheating.

But basically the point is that political candidates will only pay for cherry picked minutes of airtime. So the fact that it is a debate and not a commerical is quite relevant to the economics of the airtime.

Of course since this is America, we can have multiple philosophies and brands for debate formats.

I suggest that rather than calling it “French”, you give credit to AT&T for inventing “roll-over” minutes. Design the format and see if you can host it for 2016.

Of course picking on either Candy or Jim as moderators really boils down to an attack against these servicemarks.

Since the business of america is always minting various forms of exceptionalism/trademark…this discussion might be more directly related to the economy than some might think.

She never took offense at Romney’s crowding for more time. She threaded the needle between working with the candidates and keeping them on task.

Clarification wise, she pushed Romney on the AK question, but she look at the clarification question she gave Obama on gasoline prices: “Is this the new normal?” Ouch.

The biggest problem is what Jim states, in both debates: without clear procedural rules vis-a-vis TIME (format you arguably have to leave more flexible), some kind of imbalance is inevitable. We conservatives have a right to demand 6-8 extra minutes for the third debate. So in the future, clock it.