Two challengers for an Indiana congressional seat have agreed to be hooked up to lie detectors during an upcomming debate. While it is unlikely to happen - it demonstrates the sillyness that the 2008 campaign season seems to be turning into.

Ninth District Republican Party Chairman Larry Shickles on proposed the political polygraphs for Democratic Rep. Baron Hill, GOP challenger Mike Sodrel and Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg. The three are scheduled to debate Oct. 21, but an official with a debate co-sponsor said lie detectors won’t be included.

“Our planning committee worked up the format and rules, and we are not inviting negotiations from the candidates,” Alan Johnson, dean of Vincennes University’s Jasper Campus, told The Herald of Jasper.

Shickles, in a letter sent Tuesday to 9th District Democratic Chairman Mike Jones, suggested that the candidates be hooked up to lie detecting machines at the Oct. 21 event or a separate debate.

“While this format may be unusual, I feel strongly that voters need to be able to make a clear decision without all the usual spin,” Shickles wrote.

Sodrel’s campaign said he would agree to the proposal, and Schansberg said he also would agree to wear a lie detector. Hill declined to comment.

Jones said having a lie detector debate “just seems pretty bizarre.”

“Polygraphs have their use in law enforcement, but I don’t see them fitting in a political debate,” Jones said. “There are plenty of avenues for finding out each candidate’s true position. The votes of both Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel are on record with Congress.”

I have been polygraphed as part of my security clearance process. I found it to be quite frankly an annoying experience - and to be done properly - requires considerable concentration and sterile testing conditions. You cannot move around. You cannot gesture. You have to answer questions yes or no. Even under ideal conditions - the polygraph relies on individuals having a firm sense of “truth” and demonstrating a physical reaction to deception. It is difficult for me to believe that all of these factors would be present during a Congressional debate. I cannot imagine how the voters would be served by having an on the spot “lie-detector” aspect interjected into a political debate. If the people of Indiana have such a lack of faith in the honesty of their political process - perhaps they should express such at the ballot box.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Getting to Sixty before January 20th
• Why Republicans will likely have to cave on the automaker bailout.
• Can Congress Bailout the US financial System? Should it?
• Politico: A fumble on the Farm Bill
• Oil Execs before the US Senate