Many debate organizers and participants agree that the overall goal of debate should be to provide voters with a substantive understanding of candidates’ positions and plans. But they differ on how to accomplish that goal.
For example, some believe that debates should include non-presidential candidates and that the debate format should be broader in topic areas. Others feel that debate should be more like a town hall, with the audience participating and questioners asking questions from the floor. Still others feel that debate should incorporate a more relaxed format, such as one without timed answers or strict structures, and that the debates should be held in communities across the country.
The Working Group’s members generally agreed that debates should remain principally an exchange of views between presidential and vice presidential candidates and that those views should be relevant to voter choice and interest. Other costs, however, are associated with a debate that is principally a theatrical event in an elite facility where chosen political spinners and credentialed journalists gather to engage in tired rituals.
For instance, the presence of an in-person audience can magnify moments and obscure substantive issues with eruptions of laughter or cheering that distract viewers at home. Moreover, audience reactions can skew debate coverage by appearing to reinforce the most polarizing statements made by the candidates.
Similarly, the selection of moderators (usually journalists) is often arbitrary and gives the debates the appearance of being little more than marketing opportunities for the network whose reporter or anchor is moderating. And the pursuit of “follow-up” can result in questions that advance news agendas rather than help voters understand the candidates’ plans and positions on issues.