For some reason, the Republican Party has decided to let Fox News determine the parameters of its first presidential debate. This being Fox, I assumed the network might swap the candidates with leggy blondes squatting behind transparent desks. At least that choice, as opposed to the ones already made, would reveal the entire exercise as the charade it is. Those expecting a debate should steer clear of Cleveland on Thursday, for this first “media primary” is little more than a ratings grab masquerading as a civics lesson.

With 17 candidates declared, Fox has decided to hold two events. The first is the “happy hour” debate (as Sen. Lindsey Graham has dubbed it) at 5:00 p.m., which includes the languishing candidates, and the second is the 9:00 p.m. main event, featuring the top ten in the polls. Using national polls as a cut-off makes only a superficial sense, the kind that sounds reasonable to the uninformed. Polling, at this point in the race, is more about generating media buzz than about predicting who might actually win. In 2008, Hillary was can’t miss as of now, and in 2012 Herman Cain appeared viable according to the polls, those oracles of democracy. For most voters, asking about preferences this early is really asking about name recognition. As such, the cut for Thursday has all the intellectual rigor of a homecoming coronation, with Donald Trump posing as the rich kid mugging around with the hot girl and Scott Walker as the earnest everyman who refuses to choose between cliques.

In Fox’s defense, what other options exist? There is no practical way to put seventeen candidates on stage at the same time unless you want it to feel like those awful reality show recaps (Yes, I am looking at you, Survivor, or at least I would be if I had watched you once in the past ten years) that gravitate toward the winners, but politely ask for comments from the first people voted off the island. Then again, putting ten people on a stage, and expecting anything resembling helpful political discourse, is equally delusional. But, remember, we are dealing with cable news, an animal that rarely resembles the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Vapidity is kind of assumed.

The best option, if such a thing exists once this process has been probed by the carnal squawk box, would be to hold three or four events, perhaps on successive nights or even on successive weeks. Draw four or five candidates randomly and let people watch more detailed discussions. Or, perhaps most ideally, pick your best interviewer on the network and give them a one hour sit down with each candidate for the next two or three weeks.

All of this assumes, naturally, that Fox wants to inform voters. Fox, because, you know, tv, wants good theater. This phony discussion of “who is in and who is out” has already reduced the debate to a spectacle. I half expect Chris Christie to decapitate John Kasich on stage and yell, “Are you not entertained?” For Fox, nothing else matters. After all, who, in their right mind, would want to provide the American people with a semi-rational view of the policies and personalities that will monopolize at least half of the presidential campaign season next year? Certainly not tv.

Even if we stick to Fox’s infelicitous format, there are other ways–beyond national polling–to categorize the field. As Harry Enten points out at FiveThirtyEight.com, Fox could use state polling (either Iowa or New Hampshire), endorsements, or even fundraising as better indicators of which candidates are in the top-tier and which are not. But, as Enten reminds us, those are not always helpful either, at least if we compare them to past outcomes. There is a chance, though small, the eventual nominee or the second-place finisher will sit at the Kiddie Table on Thursday, away from the glare of the brightest lights. As of now, I might take those outcomes, for at least that would guarantee a Trump failure, which is really the only concern for civilized humans.