HuffingtonPost, Yahoo, and Slate have announced they are running two online presidential debates, one for each party, online after Labor Day, with Charlie Rose moderating questions from the public, who will, in turn, rate the performances of the candidates. That good. But I'm not sure what truly separates this from television town-hall-style debates, except that it will be online. And the audience rating will have about as much value as any utterly unscientific poll on a blog, talk show, or USA Today (given two of the sites involved, I think we can probably handicap those ratings right now; McCain and Clinton could channel Kennedy and Lincoln and they still would get raspberries). So what would I want? Maybe the debate should empower the wisdom of the crowd: We should vote up and select the questions that get asked. We should rate the answers as they occur and vote on whether followups should be asked. We should have a back-channel conversation, as we have at geeky conferences, that's monitored by the moderators so they can ask what's really on our mind and ask our own followups. And why limit this to an hour or so? The more we can press the candidates on more issues the better. This should be an ongoing, virtual, distributed debate that starts now and ends on election day. This is why we have proposed PrezConference, with you asking the candidates questions via YouTube. The more the better.