Probably can’t hurt, but like you, I question the value of a campaign representative stating a position in 140 characters or less–with more time than the candidate would have in a debate. Could make for an odd mix of scripted and superficial. Still, it’s a step in the right direction, and voters just might demand more.

Perhaps the best thing to come out of the twitter debates will be the ensuing discussion among viewers. Maybe that conversation with put forward some better ideas on how to improve government. Ideas the candidates can then adopt. Government by the people, for the people.

My biggest fear from this is that it will legitimize twitter as something more than a vanity portal — hold on, I’m just tweeting that I’m writing a comment — ok back.

I don’t see why twitter is better for this than just a normal blog, where questions could really be answered. If someone is trying to introduce web 2.0 tech into the election, I think a FAQ database would be even better: voters can open tickets and then have the candidates responses side by side.

[...] note: for previous coverage of the role of wikinomics in this race, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. (I’m always willing to let those I source get a bunch of inbound [...]