As the 2020 US presidential election approaches, debates have become a crucial part of the campaign process. Debates are not only an opportunity for candidates to present their policies and ideas but also a chance for voters to understand their positions on important issues.
However, in recent years, debates have been criticized for being more about entertainment than substance. The rise of social media and the 24-hour news cycle has turned political debates into spectacles rather than serious discussions about policy issues.
Zeynep Tufekci, a prominent writer and scholar on technology and society, argues that this trend is not unique to politics but is symptomatic of our broader culture’s obsession with spectacle. In her book “Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest,” she writes about how social media has transformed protests from serious demonstrations into photo-ops.
The same could be said about political debates where candidates often try to score points with zingers or dramatic moments instead of engaging in substantive discussion. But does this mean that we should do away with debates altogether? Not necessarily.
Debates can still serve as an essential tool for educating voters if they are done right. Here are some suggestions for improving the format:
Firstly, there should be fewer candidates on stage during primary debates. During the early Democratic primary debates in 2019, there were up to ten candidates on stage at once which made it challenging for viewers to follow any meaningful discussion between them. Limiting the number of participants would make it easier for moderators to ask targeted questions while allowing each candidate enough time to respond adequately.
Secondly, moderators should focus more on policy issues rather than personal attacks or sensationalist topics. One example was during a Republican debate in 2016 when moderator Megyn Kelly asked Donald Trump about his derogatory comments towards women instead of focusing on policy issues like tax reform or healthcare. While such questions may generate headlines, they do little to inform voters about a candidate’s actual positions on policy issues.
Thirdly, debates should be fact-checked in real-time. In the 2016 presidential debates, Donald Trump repeatedly made false claims that went unchallenged by moderators or his opponent Hillary Clinton. This lack of accountability allowed him to spread misinformation and mislead voters. Fact-checking during the debate would help prevent candidates from making false statements and hold them accountable for their claims.
Fourthly, there should be more diversity among moderators. The majority of moderators in recent years have been white men which can lead to a narrow focus on certain issues while neglecting others that may be important to different communities. Having moderators who represent a range of backgrounds and experiences would ensure that a broader range of issues is covered during the debate.
Finally, there should be more time for substantive discussion between candidates rather than rehearsed soundbites or pre-prepared speeches. Candidates often spend more time attacking each other than discussing their policies or ideas. Allowing for more extended periods of open discussion could result in deeper insights into each candidate’s positions and promote constructive dialogue between them.
In conclusion, debates are an essential part of the democratic process but need to evolve with changing times to remain relevant and informative for voters. By limiting participants, focusing on policy issues instead of personal attacks, fact-checking in real-time, promoting diversity among moderators and allowing more extended periods for substantial discussions will make our Presidential Debates less sensationalist spectacles and better opportunities for voters to engage with the candidates’ platforms before heading out into the polls come election day.