Regardless of the format, political debates have a unique ability to generate interest in campaigns, help voters understand candidates and forecast governance, and increase voter turnout. However, they also have an unintended downside: they can distract viewers by focusing on negative attacks and by exaggerating or ignoring the impact of specific policies. With the right reforms, the benefits of debates can be retained while improving their effectiveness.
Currently, the format of most debates is set by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiated between the campaigns that settles various details, such as whether or not to mute a candidate’s microphone when it is not their turn and how long they have to answer a question. The MOU typically is not made public.
In some cases, the MOU may impose rules on candidates that are inconsistent with debate standards established by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). This includes not interrupting or shouting down fellow candidates or the moderator; using only factual and nonpartisan statements during their answers; avoiding personal attacks against their opponents, their families or associates; staying within their allotted time limits, and using the debate to discuss their policies rather than making soundbites for publicity.
Moreover, some of the costs associated with debates are unnecessary or wasteful. For example, the value of a facility where chosen political spinners and credentialed journalists gather in person for a ritualized event has diminished as senior campaign voices engage the press through email or Twitter.
About the Author
