Get Rid of the Presidential "Debates": A Radically Moderate Counterproposal
The general consensus of the first presidential debate of 2020 was that it was a "shit show" and the main star of the vice presidential debate was the housefly that landed on the Vice President's head. The good news is that we get a brief respite from visual evidence of our democracy swirling the toilet bowl since President Trump has refused to participate in the second debate due to its virtual format, giving us just one more terribly depressing debate to go.
But before we get to the third and final debate of the election season, a Radically Moderate proposal: get rid of presidential debates altogether. (In the name of fairness, here's an unconvincing defense of the debates, but we're not buying it.)
There are a bunch of reasons the debates are a stupid waste of time and Americans would be better off cleaning out their garbage disposals than spending any time thinking about what goes on there, but here are the most obvious:
American debates are not substantive, they don't address or uncover real differences between the candidates, and they allow candidates to manipulate and spin their messages in ways that are probably harmful. We know they don't actually help democratic deliberation and may actually harm it.
Debates don't have much, if any, discernible effect on elections. At this point in the election cycle, there are very few undecided voters and research consistently shows that debates have very little effect on anyone, undecided voters included.
Because the debate format is so awful, the debates are a mere mockery of democracy, one where opponents simply attack each other without offering any actual policy guidance. In fact, given the format of two minute talking points and one minute rebuttals, the less information a candidate provides, the better off he or she is. You don't want to give your opponent anything substantive to respond to and lo and behold the candidates do not. Witness Biden refusing to discuss court packing and Trump refusing to denounce white supremacy (one of these things is not quite like the other, let's be honest, but both are important).
Not only that, but the debates are actually undemocratic, because they're controlled by the two main parties and require third parties to poll at 15% for entry into the debate. There's a chicken-and-egg argument here: how can third parties poll well nationally when they're kept off the most-watched political event in American politics? By keeping third parties off the stage and allowing the candidates themselves to avoid any real substantive policy discussions, the debates have devolved into a way to solidify the control of the two major parties and prevent any real political innovation (see here, here, and here). All this despite the fact that Americans want third parties in the debates and want better political options in general.
Finally, the debates are awful because the format, particularly the nature of televised debates, not only fails to provide us with any substantive content, but actually focuses voters on irrelevant characteristics of candidates that trigger unconscious biases in the human brain. Political science research has consistently shown that voters pay attention to height, voice timbre (they prefer deep voices), and appearance, all of which are largely irrelevant to whether someone has the ability to lead a country. (President Trump tried to capitalize on this in one of the 2016 debates by looming behind Clinton, perhaps in an attempt to both intimidate her and signal his "dominance" to viewers.) Such characteristics tell us nothing about a candidate's fitness for public office, but our brains don't know that and the less we know about the specific candidates involved, the more we rely on these physical cues. Not only that, but these cues may bias voters against candidates who don't fit the traditional dominant masculine type, another loss for real political diversity.
So let's sum this up:
Presidential debates do not seem to affect the outcome of elections in any particular way.
If they do affect the outcome of elections, it's not likely to be for good reasons (i.e. substantive policy positions on actual important issues).
And in fact any effect of the debates is very likely to be for bad reasons, such as whether someone stutters or is short or sounds "shrill" or wears the wrong pantsuit or sweats a lot or seems to physically dominate the other person.
The debates are anti-democratic by creating a political monopoly controlled by the two major parties, stifling political competition and innovation.
So overall, the debates not only don't do any good, but are quite likely to do active harm by limiting competition, focusing voters on irrelevant characteristics, and perhaps even biasing voters against nontraditional candidates. Yikes!
A Radically Moderate Proposal
Given that our national presidential debates are stupid and vicious and undemocratic, what options do we have? Our Radically Moderate suggestion? Get rid of them. Replace the debates with a series of substantive standalone interviews with respected journalists or a panel of policy wonks or some other collection of people with the knowledge and skill to manage candidate obfuscation (another option we like: a game show!). Such interviews could include having candidates answer potential objections to their platform proposals, reviewing the candidate's political track record in detail, and holding the candidate accountable for truthiness while on the campaign trail, all while being free from the bombast and interruptions of the other side. Third parties could easily be included in such a format. Even very small third parties who might not be worth journalists' time would have little difficulty creating a parallel interview and releasing it on YouTube to provide a contrast against the main party platforms.
That sort of "debate" would restore dignity to elections (if such a thing ever existed), would provide voters with actual substantive information about what candidates plan to do when in office, and would reduce the noise of irrelevant non-verbal cues like whether one candidate is "dominating" the other. At the same time, we would still get to see how the candidates respond to tough questions, how they hold up under pressure, and how they defend their positions, which are arguably what the debates are supposed to do but are clearly not doing. (Some other possible reforms are discussed here.)
We know that this format can work because local radio stations do it all the time with candidates for local office and the format seems to work fine. In fact, we usually find out more about specific candidates in these long-form interviews than we could ever learn from the pre-digested bile that slops out of candidates' mouths in the highly artificial debate format.
Why wouldn't something like this work at the national level? Most obviously because candidates and the main parties will resist it because it asks them to provide real discussion of actual substantive issues and opens them up to competition from third parties. Which tells us a lot about the state of American democracy.
What Can You Do?
While we're limited to the current structure of the debates by the Two Party Industrial Complex, we can still resist this monopoly on our political lives, in large and small ways.
First, don't watch. Clean your garbage disposal. Decide that today is the day you'll scrub that pesky grout in the upstairs shower with a toothbrush. Take a walk with your family. Organize your garage. Watch reruns of Seinfeld. Take a nap. The good news is that almost any way you spend your time will be more productive than watching the debates, so you can't possibly lose!
Email or call the Commission on Presidential Debates to tell them how undemocratic and pointless their format is. It won't have any effect, but you can bask in the glow of keyboard warriorism and then search for that old toothbrush under the sink to get ready for grout-cleaning. It'll be a more productive day than most! Here's their email and phone number (they don't have a direct line for citizens, which is telling): media@debates.org or by phone at (202) 872-1020.
Actively seek out third party messaging and see how it compares. What options are third parties talking about that the main two parties are totally avoiding? Why do you think that is? Here's a beginner's guide to third parties (from back when it looked like the Republican party might fracture), but some basic Googling can help you locate local third parties doing interesting and potentially groundbreaking work. This isn't a call to actually vote third party in the current election, but it is a call to broaden the debate and start thinking outside the two party box.
If you absolutely must tune in for the debates (but seriously, don't: see #1), try it without video. You may find you get a very different feel when you're not distracted by irrelevant issues like how the candidates are dressed, whether they're leaning into each other, or random insect activity. In addition to not being distracted by irrelevant stuff, you can also happily clean that garbage disposal while listening, thus checking two boxes off your to-do list.
What do you think? If you insist on watching the presidential debates, why? If you could replace the presidential debates with another format, what would it be? Let us know in the comments!