Party presidential debates could be one of the most valuable tools for the electorate in determining which of the candidates should get their vote.
Could be but aren't, as of yet.
Last week's CNBC Republican debate appeared to be the last straw for the GOP candidates, who demanded - independent of the Republican National Committee - more control over the events.
They're right for wanting it, but what emerges needs to work for everybody.
The three Republican debates - and to a small extent the single Democratic debate - have been sessions in which the hosts tried to entice candidates to answer have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions and to argue with each other.
Certainly, candidates in both parties should answer tough questions, be able to think fast on their feet and be able to highlight differences with their fellow candidates.
But the debates also should be informational - events where viewers learn more about the individuals' plans for the presidency, their fixes for such problems as health care, the economy, the Middle East and Social Security, and not necessarily learn their thoughts on sports gambling or their own weaknesses.
Debate hosts rightly wouldn't want 10-minute infomercials about each candidate, though, and neither would the audience. Ratings would tank and advertisers would flee. But some middle ground of information and exchange should be possible.
CNBC, being a business network, for instance, could have had each candidate sum up his or her economic plan in three minutes, asked them questions about it and had one or two other candidates ask the candidate a question about his or her proposal. The Republican National Committee thought it had improved the process after 2012's ugly debate-a-week schedule, but the first three debates proved otherwise. So on Sunday representatives from more than a dozen GOP campaigns met to hammer out changes that will be sent this week to debate hosts.
The candidates need the debates for exposure, the networks need the debates for ratings and advertising revenue, and the public needs them for information. Surely, a solution that helps all three is workable. Only the highest office in the land is at stake.