Political debates offer audiences a chance to learn about candidates’ policies and plans, but they’re often dominated by confrontational conflict. Young voters, in particular, say they want a new kind of debate that focuses on calm and curious discussions. They want to watch and actively follow debates on social media, but they find the current format too tense to keep their attention.
Currently, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) sets the debate format and chooses moderators with little input from the public or other journalists, resulting in questions that advance the news agenda more than they help citizens understand the candidates’ views and proposals. Moreover, the press aims for “follow-up” questions in post-debate interviews and Sunday shows, so candidates often prepare to debate the questioners rather than each other, which can lead to unproductive exchanges.
Healthy politics requires respect for others, even when their priorities and values are different from one’s own. Disrespectful discourse degrades the public’s trust in elected officials, makes it harder for them to do their jobs and may dissuade good people from pursuing political careers.
We recommend a new approach to the debate format, starting with limiting each candidate to two opportunities to deviate from the formal debate rules and address an issue of their choice that the CPD or the audience has raised. Adding these “challenge flags” to the formal debate allows each candidate to clarify previous statements, respond to an attack and address issues raised by third parties that they haven’t had an opportunity to discuss in the official format.