Editorial: Candidates should duke it out in live debate

AFTER seeing the Trump-Clinton debate, I'm convinced: we don't take our politics seriously enough.

Granted, we're only facing local body elections right now, but was I justified in inserting the word "only"? Electing the right people to represent us in council and other democratic organisations is important enough for most of us to do a little reading and hear what the candidates say.

But their words are written or rehearsed. What we need is what the United States did with their 90-minute debate -- a bloody, gladiatorial verbal combat to the electoral death in front of an audience of voters.

Ninety minutes is long enough for the combatants to exhaust their carefully rehearsed ad-libs and roam into uncharted territory, where even extreme confidence will wither and fail beneath the onslaught of research and preparation.

Once upon a time our leaders were chosen by virtue of courage and physical strength, coupled with skill with weapons and an ability to inflict injury. A combination that was hard to argue with.

Now we expect them to do all of that verbally. They must be the best among the candidates at what they are setting out to do, which is "speak" on behalf of the community and follow it up with action, often word-based. And that's what the Trump-Clinton debate was all about. There was no real blood spilled, but there were wounds of humiliation and well-aimed truth, a few hard-to-deflect lies and the scorn, real or imagined, of their audience.

It's what we need here. Put the candidates in the ring with a moderator and live-stream the performance to as many voters as can access it. There are multiple candidates, so they will all have to contribute a set amount and be prepared to justify themselves and ask further hard questions of their greatest critics -- the other candidates. When the dust has settled and the wounds are bandaged, we will know who to vote for.