Political debates have a unique opportunity to generate interest in the campaign, help voters understand and assess their choices, forecast governance, and encourage voting on principles rather than merely based on opposition to the opponent. However, with the right reforms debates can do even more to advance those goals. The Working Group’s conclusions are:
Debates should provide a space where voters can sharpen their views, in a focused format, of the candidates with the highest likelihood of winning the presidency. This nonpartisan goal has guided the Commission’s selection of presidential candidate invitations and criteria for moderator selection since 1992.
While the Commission’s debate schedule is set over a year in advance of the election and sites are chosen based on logistical requirements, there is room for more flexibility in both formats and scheduling. For example, the first debate could be moved to mid-September to give military families and voters who use early voting the opportunity to see the candidates.
While the Commission has made modest changes to the format and structure of the debates, debate organizers and viewers have expressed concern that the overall quality of debates has not improved in recent years. One key issue is that, with the exception of the town hall, the moderator decides which questions are asked and when they are asked, advancing his or her own agenda or seeking “follow-up” stories from the campaign. This can lead to a dynamic where the candidates are preparing for the moderator, and not each other.
About the Author
