It’s hard to imagine how any American could have come out of the First Presidential Debate on September 29th with a better impression of the candidates or democracy in general. For ninety painful minutes, Americans watched in suspended horror as both candidates slung mud at each other, with a rational discussion of policies taking a backseat to juvenile name-calling. Pundits alike have christened it the “worst presidential debate of all time”, forcing the Debate Commission to consider sweeping format changes. With the virtual format of the second debate leading to its cancellation, the fate of the third debate hangs in the balance.

When it comes to presidential debates, it’s almost cliche to romanticise the past. Their history is well-documented: they were first televised in 1960 when 8-year-incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon took on the young Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was cool, calm and collected, sitting casually to contrast a visibly nervous Nixon still recovering from the flu. After three debate-less elections, they continued in 1976. The Ford-Carter debates were famous for Gerald Ford’s gaffe, where the president declared that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”. Ford intended to communicate that the spirits in the region were not swayed by Soviet occupation. However, to the audience, the president seemed woefully unaware of geopolitics within the area, and the gaffe elucidated a supposed foreign policy weakness that has endured in Ford’s legacy. Since 1976, the three presidential debates have been a staple of the American election cycle.

It is an often-heard maxim that modern-day debates are no longer about policies. In the original set of debates, hosted by the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan coalition, there was undoubtedly more of a commitment to policy. However, the stand-out moments have never been concerned with the issues or defense of policy. We remember George H.W Bush checking his watch against Bill Clinton; or Al Gore sighing while George W Bush spoke; or Michael Dukakis being forced to consider the extremities of his stance against the death penalty. It has always been about the optics of the candidates—an attempt to distinguish the greater showman between them. With every passing election, the debates continue to abandon their intended focus on policy. From the coverage of this debate, it is clear that divisions among the American populace are too deep-seated to allow rational discourse between the candidates on national television.

Campaign officials and media outlets dramatize the debates significantly, and while their importance in primary elections is apparent, they fail to impact general elections as dramatically. Viewership has undoubtedly increased, with 73.13 million viewers tuning in to the 1st presidential debate in 2020 compared to 27.3 million for the first debate in 1960. This number also ignores viewership on streaming sites like YouTube, which alone added more than 124 million debate viewers in 2016. However, to truly understand the debate’s impact, we need to examine polling. According to polling from Monmouth University, only “3 percent of the surveyed said they are likely to hear something that will impact their eventual vote choice”, with 10 percent saying that it is somewhat likely. Similar numbers hold for 2016. 

According to the Harvard Business Review, over 72 percent of voters make up their minds over two months before the election, long before the candidates square off. With the American populace increasingly divided, presidential debates may serve as validation for their own opinions on the candidates. Viewers of media outlets like CNN after the debate would have seen decidedly pro-Biden coverage, whereas Fox called it a clear victory for Trump. The obsession with declaring winners and losers for every single debate only serves to further diminish the objectivity of these events.

With elections recently, especially in 2020, it seems as though voters are almost over-saturated with information about the candidates. Accessing surface-level details on the candidates is easier than ever, and the fervour of the debates adds to the commotion of the election season. Voters need presidential debates that clarify positions rather than allow candidates to regurgitate stump speeches and specific talking points. For these discussions to have any value, we need to be able to see the candidates directly engaging with voters, along with better accountability from the media.

The biggest problem with debates is the bafflingly archaic format. Two minute talk times, limited back-and-forth, and a lack of obligation to answer the question combine to create a debate of little substance to an undecided voter. Voter engagement is at an all-time high due to social media and coupled with a generation with a shorter attention span than ever before, the candidates need both regular and direct communication with voters, and an open platform to do so. Outside of the second presidential debate’s town hall format, there is no other event where voters can see both candidates answer questions from prospective voters side-by-side. Technology needs to be more central to the debate process, specifically social media. While candidates are certainly prevalent on social media, we rarely get the opportunity to see genuine back-and-forth between candidates and voters. 

Christine Cupaiuolo, the lead author of a report called “Rethinking Debates” by the Democracy Fund, clearly articulated the need for social media engagement in modern political debates. Specifically, the report called for Live Interactive Audience Feedback, a round of voter-generated questions, and emerging tools of post-debate analysis. A test of this took place in CNN’s interactive debate in the United Kingdom. Each member of the 130-member audience was provided with an iPad that allowed them to click emoticons to indicate their opinions on issues. Using user-generated data permitted the audience to stay engaged with the debate directly, allowing more active political participation. 

The format is not without its faults, as Cupaiulo points out. Primarily, it would require very specific and elaborate infrastructural changes, which may be impractical in the US. Secondly, it might exacerbate the superficiality problem as opposed to solving it. With the emoticons, public opinion would once again be at the forefront of the debate, negating the ability to discuss policy sophisticatedly. However, the American presidential debates are certainly in need of more voter engagement, as this would help curtail the indifference that many voters feel towards the elected representatives. The advent of a direct channel of communication would also help increase the accessibility of political candidates, as voters could directly influence the areas of discussion.

With a more user-centric format, in which audience members are allowed to pick the topics of discussion, we could help to negate the excessive influence that the media exerts over the debate. It is in the interest of the hosting channel to create a more dramatic debate, as they will profit from the subsequent rating bump. In 2016, NBC’s coverage of the Trump-Clinton debate drew 18 million viewers after Lester Holt hosted the debate. That number plummeted to 9.7 million this year. Fox News, carried by Chris Wallace, garnered 17.8 million viewers in 2020 compared to 11.4 million in 2016. 

The moderator is the third character in the show, attempting to act as a voice of reason while simultaneously failing to hold candidates accountable to the debate. They often interrupt the back-and-forth of the candidates, feebly attempting to escort the debates in a particular direction. The role of the moderator is disputed. Some feel that the moderator should police interruptions toallow the candidates to speak as freely as possible. Contrastingly, some feel that the moderator should cross-examine the candidates directly, with intermittent fact-checks and a more hardline approach. For a technology-centric format to work, the moderator should represent the undecided voter and serve to highlight the differences between the candidates. If the media continues to cover the debates as if they were covering a sporting event, the drama of the debate will always supersede the substance.

In their current format, presidential debates only serve to deepen the partisan divide within the American population. Until this election season, the debates have been remembered for the optics of the candidates over their policy, and without structural change, they will remain a crude popularity contest. The format needs to be restructured to accommodate voter engagement and social media at a more fundamental level to reflect the importance of technology to the populace. Debates need to present the candidates to undecided voters to allow for more informed choice. If the candidates cannot engage directly with voter perspectives, the only loser will be the voters.