The in-person political debates that are now a regular part of the presidential campaign offer voters an opportunity to compare candidates’ positions on important issues and forecast governance. But there are serious problems with the current format of these events that can diminish their effectiveness.
For one, televised debates are usually moderated by television journalists – typically anchors or reporters from news programs at major networks. This limits the pool of possible moderators and can create conflicts of interest, such as when a journalist’s network or employer has a financial stake in the outcome of a debate. This can distort the moderator’s ability to keep the debate on track and provide viewers with unbiased information.
In addition, the debate format can magnify moments of unscripted behavior. Laughter or cheers from the in-person audience, even when directed at specific candidates, can magnify or detract from the impact of a moment, and have been used to undermine or bolster debate points. This can be distracting to viewers at home, and it can give a false impression of the public’s attitude toward a particular candidate or issue.
Another concern is that the debate format can reduce the participation of non-aligned or independent voters, who have less of an incentive to participate in a forum where they will be surrounded by members of their own party. To address this, the Commission on Presidential Debates should consider increasing the number of debates – and making them more timely and flexible – to accommodate the growing numbers of Americans who identify as non-aligned or refuse to state a preference.