When they occur, political debates are a powerful tool for informing the electorate about candidates’ positions on issues and policies. But too often, these events deteriorate into gladiatorial clashes, personal attacks and off-topic commentary that detract from their value. The Commission on Presidential Debates must improve its management of the events to meet the needs of voters and the press.
The Working Group recognizes the importance of a standard that is applied consistently to determine a candidate’s eligibility for participation in debates. The group supports a requirement that a candidate be able to demonstrate the potential to win a majority of electoral votes, as well as a commitment to abide by debate rules in order to participate.
Moreover, the Working Group believes that a requirement to discuss issues with opponents would make the debates more constructive and productive, as it would force both sides to clarify their positions and offer specific policy proposals. It also recommends implementing rules that would allow for more meaningful discussion of specific issues, including cross-examination, opening and closing statements and more flexible time limits for questions and responses to enable clearer comparisons and contrasts between or among positions.
The Working Group has heard arguments that the rules for third-party candidates should be liberalized to allow for a guaranteed invitation for independent and non-aligned candidates who could have an impact on voters, particularly in close races and when party allegiances appear weak. This is consistent with other work by scholars in communication and politics that shows that debates play an important role in vote choice formation when they are held in a close race, when the electorate is highly unfamiliar with the candidates or when their views on a particular issue vary significantly.