Ever since the drama of the 2016 election, I’ve been an avid debate watcher, meticulously planning m homework and extracurriculars in order to catch them. However, lately I’ve noticed myself becoming frustrated at how the debates are handled, and feeling they need reform.
First off, the debates don’t actually go that in-depth. They only take about two hours as a whole and cover a variety of issues, meaning not a lot of time is given to any one topic. The candidates themselves are usually limited to 60 and 30 second answers, encouraging them to create cheap sound bytes that can be played on debate highlight reels but don’t fully explain their policies. The only way for a candidate to be given extra time, it seems, is to manufacture a dispute with another candidate, which produces exchanges that are entertaining but largely irrelevant in the big picture. All of this combines to give us only a vague idea of where candidates stand on issues and makes the whole thing feel like reality TV rather than a program designed to inform voters.
Moreover, another problem is the live audience, who, despite getting reprimanded by moderators, insist on cheering and booing at everything the candidates say. While this might seem harmless, these responses can have an outsized influence on what answers are seen as successful or not to television viewers. These audiences will probably be more radical, since the amount of effort and long wait needed to be able to attend the debate as an outsider means only the most dedicated Democrats manage. This causes more Progressive candidates to get the most applause, and pressure is put on more moderate candidates to take extreme positions in order to seem like they are well liked, even though this may be out of line with how many Democratic voters actually think. Ultimately, this will only lead to candidates being forced to backtrack in the general elections, which will make them appear untrustworthy for changing their stances.
These are problems that can be remedied. One obvious way to do it would be to toss the live audience and have the candidates debate somewhere private with just themselves and the moderators. Taking away time limits, or at least greatly extending them would also help. Let candidates say what they want to say and go as deep as they need to properly explain their policies to voters. This has the added benefit of favoring candidates with detailed ideas, since they can talk for longer and will naturally draw more attention, instead of it falling to the moderators to decide who gets the most time in the spotlight. Having themed debates would also help with this, since it would allow for a more comprehensive discussion on the issue, and fully establish where they stand. This is definitely possible in the primary, if not the general, as 12 debates have been scheduled in total, and it guarantees that people won’t have to hear candidates discuss the same thing multiple times. The debates still have a lot of potential to educate citizens and help them make informed decisions at the voting booth, but they need to be improved.
