The shoutfests that pretend to be candidate debates these days have descended below embarrassing into the realm of sickening. It’s time to reestablish order and courtesy, with real enforcement.

The rules should be simple and straightforward, and they should start with “no interruptions.” Period.

Without further ado or explanation, here’s what should happen. First, all candidate microphones except that of the designated speaker should always be off. Nobody else but the designated speaker, or the moderators, should be heard. Ever.

For each question the moderator asks, all candidates would be allowed a chance to answer. Each would be allotted three minutes. With 15 seconds remaining in each answer, a clear but not overwhelming bell should ring a warning while an easily visible light comes on, both alerting the candidate that they have 15 seconds to wrap up. At the end of the three minutes, the microphone of that candidate should automatically turn off. Then the next candidate would be allowed the same three minutes to discuss the same topic. And then the next, and so on, until each has had a chance.

Smart candidates would learn, by the way, that it often will make a better impression to wrap up each answer early rather than using all the allotted time. Viewers actually like conciseness rather than answers that drone on too long.

Meanwhile, during each three-minute answer, the moderator who asked the question would be allowed to interrupt if someone has gone off topic, to redirect them to the topic. A question asked should be a question answered, rather than an opportunity for a soliloquy on whatever the candidate wants to spout off about. (Moderators should not interrupt to argue with the substance of the answers — they are not there to push a point of view — but only to ensure that candidates stay on topic.)

At the end of each round, if a moderator believes a candidate has been attacked by name, then at the moderator’s discretion, that candidate’s microphone could be turned on for 30 seconds and then go silent. Then, though, each other candidate onstage could also get 30 seconds.

And then the moderators would ask a new question, beginning another round of three-minute answers each.

At the appropriate time, each candidate should be given a two-minute closing statement.

There. That’s it. Every candidate would be afforded the opportunity for equal time. Nobody would be allowed to interrupt. At least a semblance of civility, or at least order, would be maintained.

Sure, there may not be as many fireworks or as much “entertainment” under these rules as in recent debates. But there would be far more, and far fairer, elucidation of each candidate’s positions and qualifications. Debates are not supposed to be cage matches; they are supposed to be chances for voters to learn what candidates think, why they think it, and why each candidate believes they are the one best able to translate those views into policy.

Voters are being asked to choose someone to be the leader of the free world, not to choose the winner of a season of Survivor .