Format of Presidential Debates is in Desperate Need of Change
By: Daniel Velasquez
Many Americans tuned into the Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden hoping to learn about each candidate's stance on certain issues or policies, but came away with nothing insightful. The debate was a total disaster. It was comparable to a cringey reality TV reunion show.
The moderator, Chris Wallace, lost control of the debate as both Donald Trump and Joe Biden constantly interrupted one another and both participated in name calling. A huge part of the blame for the debate descending into complete chaos is definitely on the candidates, but what is becoming apparent is that the format of our political debates are flawed and contribute to the debates going haywire.
The Issues With the Format of the Debates
One issue with the format of our debates that sticks out is the time restraints. The debate between Trump and Biden was only 90 minutes long and was split into six segments about a specific topic. Each candidate was given two minutes to respond to questions from the moderator and no more than one minute to rebut claims by the opposition. At times, they did not get a chance to address claims by the opposing candidate due to the moderator having to move on to a new topic.
The debate is vital for voters who are trying to gather information on the candidates and their policies to make an informed decision. The two minutes given to the candidates is nowhere near enough time to go over and articulate their plans to solve complex issues like the economy, healthcare, Covid-19, racism etc. The time constraints placed on the candidates cause them to interrupt each other trying to get the last word in hopes of producing sound bites.
Another issue is the lack of fact checkers. Candidates can make claims that simply are untrue or misleading. One example: Trump claimed mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud and a rigged election. A 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that voter fraud in 2016 was very rare. The incident rate for voter fraud was between 0.0003 and 0.0025 percent and most reported incidents were traceable to clerical errors or bad data matching practices. It becomes an issue because candidates make false claims that go unchecked which then get redistributed on the news and social media.
Some Alternatives
On an episode of Joe Rogan's podcast The Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan said he is open to mediating a debate between Trump and Biden on his podcast. Despite one's personal opinion of him, this would be ideal. Rogan can have them on for hours with no interruptions and he has the ability to fact check any claims there on the spot.
Another alternative, which I believe is most effective, would be to do what Rogan did with candidates in 2020 Democratic Primaries. He had Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders on separately and it was very informative. Yang was able to articulate his plan for universal basic income and Sanders was able to explain his proposal for medicare for all would work and how it would be paid for. None of this was achieved on the debate stage. It is a testament to how ineffective the current format of the debates are. This was all achieved on a podcast hosted by a comedian and MMA commentator.
How many more disastrous debates are going to have to take place before alternatives are considered? A debate with no time constraints and the ability to fact check claims on the spot, or a two hour conversation with each candidate would be much more beneficial for voters and more effective at exploring the depth of each candidate's ideas and character. Continuing with the age old and ineffective format is a disservice to the people and our democracy.