Townhalls, to some degree start to show up in the 1700s. Some authority would pitch the necessity of safety or sanitation standards...to sell the locals into change.
As you get into the 1840s/1850s....townhalls became more of a one-on-one debate situation, and you might make the case that this was pure entertainment (because of no alternates).
Presently? I'd say two negatives have occurred in the past thirty years.
First, political folks have worked to game-up the townhall method....making sure the 'right' people were in the audience, or the 'right' questions were asked. To a significant degree today....no one believes townhalls are authentic or neutral.
Second, townhalls need a special type of moderator, and the news people have screwed this up enough....that you can't get a true townhall without feeling lectured or prosecuted.
Should there be a limit on townhalls? Generally, for the audience....I wouldn't allow more than a hundred folks. You don't want this to be a love-fest, or a hate-fest.
The necessity for townhall rules? Well....you don't want a major league baseball handbook with 90 pages of townhall rules. That would make no sense.
If I were picking a moderator? I'd go to a non-journalist. I'd just open the session with one simple question (how do you feel today), and then throw it open for the one-hundred folks to poke around with their questions.
I didn't consider the CNN townhall to be a true townhall....it was some conjured-up deal that CNN had with Trump and they figured their moderator would do the real questions. It was comical failure.
Do we need more townhalls? Well....if this is going to be a Jesus-versus-Satan thing....NO.
