Debates are important tools in the democratic toolbox. They can generate interest in candidates, inform voters of key policy issues and forecast governance. However, debates must be improved to meet these goals. Without reform, they may fail to provide the public with a substantive understanding of their choices and will continue to skew toward those who can afford to hire teams of paid media experts to deliver a carefully crafted narrative that shapes the outcome.
The current format of a single moderator and town hall structure has barely changed since its inception in 1992. It’s time to consider a new approach.
While the debates have a unique capacity to increase voter participation, they also create an image of political squabbles that can undermine the trust voters have in their leaders. Moreover, it is difficult for viewers to separate the rhetorical sniping from the substance of the arguments.
Some of the most memorable moments in recent presidential debates have stemmed from miscues by the candidates. In one memorable exchange, Michael Dukakis seemed unable to articulate his support for capital punishment. And Donald Trump erred in calling undocumented immigrants “bad hombres.”
Some scholars have argued that the rules should be relaxed so that third-party and independent candidates can participate in the debates. These proposals are based on the idea that while debates cannot change the ultimate electoral outcome, they can give these candidates a significant amount of free airtime in which to explain their ideas. This is in addition to the traditional forms of individual voter engagement, such as door-to-door canvassing and telephone calls, which are highly effective but require substantial resources.
About the Author
