Is It Time to Update Political Debates?
How an updated format could improve the debate process
Originally published at Medium on January 13, 2023.
Is It Time to Update Political Debates?
How an updated format could improve the debate process
Is It Time to Update Political Debates?
How an updated format could improve the debate process
Free and fair elections exist to serve the citizenry. Therefore all the processes that contribute to and facilitate free and fair elections must do the same.
Political debates, a central component of the election process, are no exception. Debates are a vital component of democratic societies as they allow voters to make informed decisions about the candidates and issues that will impact their lives and communities. However, the current format of these debates has some limitations that could be improved with slight modifications.
One change that could be made is shifting the emphasis of the debate to the politicians, their abilities, and fitness for office. This could be achieved by adjusting the way questions are presented to candidates and how candidates interact.
This would simply entail changing the role of the moderator to reduce influence on the conversation and eliminate irrelevant and inappropriate interjections by anyone who is not a candidate participating in the debate.
Candidates, in some cases, could interact directly with one another, taking turns asking questions to a group or another candidate specifically. In other cases, candidates could designate someone from their campaign team to represent them in questioning themselves and other candidates.
This would benefit the American populous by putting more emphasis on candidate interaction which would remove the illusion of objectivity in questioning and moderation, provide candidates an opportunity for clearer messaging, and give voters a more well-rounded look at candidates and their abilities and not just their partisan ideologies.
Instead of a moderator running the debate, the dialogue should be from the candidates themselves. The moderator should not be responsible for asking questions and provoking debate, instead, the moderator should only moderate the conversation.
Each candidate should provide a representative to co-moderate the event and facilitate cordial debate, meaningful conversation, and productive conversation.
This process is similar to the trial process within the American judicial system, wherein individuals and parties appoint a lawyer to represent them in court, where they perform questioning and examination.
Ideally, these appointed co-moderators, or presenters, would play a minimal role. They would not contribute to the conversation, but rather, introduce topics for the candidates to discuss. Once the candidates begin their answers, presenters would be cut off, unable to reclaim their time.
By allowing a line of questioning from a biased and friendly questioner, candidates would have an opportunity to highlight his/her career and achievements. On the other hand, a line of questioning from the opposition could prevent candidates from avoiding certain subjects. This would be more in line with the questions the populous might have.
This is an important aspect because true objectivity is extremely rare and even unnecessary. In an environment specifically designed to incubate opinions, the facade of objectivity can be extremely harmful. Bias disguised as objectivity can be dangerous.
Therefore, instead of seeking something that simply cannot be reasonably achieved, the debate format should instead acknowledge the reality that it would be more efficient to pursue balance instead.
It is far better to listen to two openly biased people in opposition than to listen to one that thinks of themselves as objective.
Even without intentional or implicit bias, the moderator simply can not represent the questions and concerns of every American.
This would also improve the quality of conversion because the candidate and presenter would have opportunities to ask questions on behalf of their constituents, while the other presenter and candidate could do the same for theirs. This would result in a balanced conversation that could be far more productive and informative than one attempting, and failing, to be objective.
Because of an emphasis on candidate dialogue and a more balanced conversation, debates could become a rich source of high-quality information for voters.
In an era where candidates can create and distribute content so easily, debates could inadvertently serve multiple additional purposes. Long-form content, like audio or video from an entire debate, can easily be turned into short-form content for social media, internet, and television. If done honestly, this could provide an opportunity for candidates to use debates as a platform or a template.
However, the content-generating generation is also plagued with problems. For one, misinformation is more readily available than ever. Combating misinformation should be a high priority to protect election integrity and this debate format could enable candidates to directly address misinformation and arm them with content to combat ongoing misinformation.
Lies can only be fought with truth, and truth comes from information. So, giving candidates a platform to provide more information and then exposing them to good-faith oppositional scrutiny, could provide answers and context that are valuable tools in the fight against misinformation.
Another benefit of this debate format would be the opportunity for voters to see political candidates in a wider range of settings before making a decision. Debates should be seen and treated more like job interviews where candidates get to showcase not only ideas but other skills that contribute to general fitness for the job. Debates give voters a chance to see candidates in situations that might reflect the rigors of the political offices. The actual nuances of the job are difficult to replicate on a stage, but it would still allow candidates to display important skills such as preparedness, wit, debate skills, negotiating, compromise, and other important social skills.
Politicians need more than just the right ideas. Composure, poise, and performance under pressure are important aspects of the job. Often, the ideology of a candidate closely aligns with the candidate’s political party anyway, so there are other important things that a debate can teach voters about a candidate.
It might seem that this format could stoke more contention. That result is, fortunately, possible. Allowing candidates to offer the line of questioning could result in disingenuous bad-faith questions. However, the candidates would be represented by the questions they provide, not only the answers they give. A candidate’s character, intelligence, and abilities would be reflected by the questions. This would provide a strong incentive for candidates to ask fair questions. The candidates would have every reason to do research and due diligence to prepare for not only answering questions but asking as well.
Poor questions would reflect poorly on the candidate asking, so, in theory, the process would be self-enforcing. However, just like in a court of law, opposing parties should be allowed to object to certain questions that are particularly irrelevant, leading, speculative, or repetitive. It would be the role of the moderator to overrule or sustain the objection and request that the question be answered or that presenter rewords the question or asks a new one entirely.
So, it may be time to update the way political debates for performed. Doing so would provide more uninterrupted interaction directly between candidates, allow for higher quality questions and answers, and would showcase the candidates in a more comprehensive and relevant way.
These changes might seem marginal but when it comes to serving and protecting the interests of the American people, no effort is insignificant. With careful and deliberate implementation, this debate format could greatly serve the American people.
Originally published at Medium on January 13, 2023.
