Millions of Americans sat glued to the television set last Thursday as President George W. Bush took on his Democratic opponent in the first of three pre-election debates.

The bigger debate following the telecast was who won.

The latest USA Today poll had Kerry pulling even with Bush, despite being down eight points before the clash.

Unfortunately, in trying to find out if the Republicans or Democrats can rest a little easier going into tonight’s debate on domestic policy issues, it seems clear that there was only a loser last week: 62.5 million viewers.

The 2004 election comes in an age where the fast paced nature of America grossly filters into the political system, exemplified by candidates trying to fit so many thoughts on important issues seems hardly enough time.

People are dying in war right now. Iran and North Korea and who knows what other country is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Gas prices are outrageous. President Vladimir Putin is being awfully proactive in Russia. Yet Bush and Kerry said their pieces in two minutes.

Of course, the debate format has been set for years, but there has to be a more informative way, especially when so many people tune in to hear a candidate's platform for the first real time.

Here, beneath all the criticism of it day in and day out, the media fails to take advantage of the perfect chance to do something right, to fulfill their roles in the democratic process.

With that many people watching, the debates rely on a format that is too neat, too calm and too surface for anybody to get the real worth of a campaign promise. Where were all of the “how” questions?

At one point, Bush mentioned something to the effect of not even getting into how Kerry will pay for some of his ambitions. At that point, moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS should have asked Kerry how he was going to pay for his promises. That, perhaps, would have been too obvious, though.

To the disadvantage of voters, respect for the conventional process and protocol continues to take the upper hand, thus leaving viewers to either ignore one of the most important parts of policy (the cost) or to actually wonder how Kerry plans to pay out his promises.

If a movie ended that way, the audience would demand its money back. Why then, can people stand to be left out of the loop when those policies will affect their lives?

A better solution might entail loosening up the debate, allowing the candidates to directly address each other, to challenge each other directly on disagreeing points. The moderator could be more of a referee, who throws out questions and refocuses things when conversation digresses.

Not only does a reformed format like this inform the public better on issues, but also cuts out the loose scripts that incumbents conceivably prepare before the debate. Cutting those scripts also brings out personality, and character has historically been important in elections. A different format could also prove fairer for candidates like Kerry, who try to replace a president.

Furthermore, fewer questions about a candidate’s character (was Bush really going to answer that question honestly?), and more time to flesh out a policy stance which would better inform constituents.

The public, amidst all its rights thrown to them by democracy has a right to question and perhaps one day change the debate formats.

Two-minute answers just aren’t enough.