Local opinion: Political debate format needs improvement

The purpose of political debates is to educate the public by clearly identifying the candidates’ positions on important issues. That process demands a well-structured format and disciplined behavior by all participants. For the debaters to fully articulate their ideas and challenge each other’s thinking, the moderators must maintain firm control over the proceedings. If that goal is accomplished, citizens will be better informed for elections.

The current format, however, as demonstrated by the September 10th presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, failed to fully achieve that goal because it was imperfectly structured and often undisciplined.

Muted mics and an absent audience were insufficient to make the dialogue between the candidates and the moderators more intelligible. It was difficult for the debaters to define their own policy proposals no less their opponent’s. The debate, not unexpectedly, devolved into a contentious, muddled, and only a partially informative event.

There are better ways to ensure voters get the details they need to choose between political rivals.

The prominent issues of the day are, among others: immigration/border policy/deportations, economy/inflation, healthcare, foreign policy, climate change, social issues (same-sex relations, gender equality, church-state separation etc.), abortion/reproductive rights, democracy, and election integrity.

Ninety minutes is woefully inadequate to substantively deal with all of them. For example, the complexities of immigration/border policy/deportations are impossible to properly unpackage in 2-minute answers, 1-minute rebuttals, during a 10- to 15-minute segment.

Each issue deserves its own debate. I propose a 45-to-60-minute session, per topic, spread out sensibly during the few months prior to an election. In that way, candidates can properly prepare to argue the details of their positions based on the questions they will most likely be asked on those specific subjects. Through the moderators’ questions and challenges, the public will act as employers interviewing people who seek jobs critical to their personal, societal, and governmental well-being. In this multiple debate format, they will become educated about the aspirant’s ideas on these multiple matters and then better able to make an informed choice at election time.

The candidates and moderators should agree to consider the locale for the debate as a courtroom where only facts and evidence are admissible. The former must agree to be fact-checked, and the latter must consider themselves as judges who want the jury (potential voters) to only hear the truth. They must insist their questions and challenges be answered. No evading, pivoting, or dodging are permitted. For example, in this recent presidential debate, Harris dodged the first question she was asked about the economy. And later, Trump evaded moderator David Muir’s question about why he didn’t agree to the bipartisan immigration plan... to rebut a point Harris made about his crowd size. He never answered Muir’s important question, and it was not revisited by this moderator. In essence, Trump ignored, disrespected, and bullied Muir…. who would probably defend his not insisting Trump answer his question by claiming that time constraints demanded he move on to the next topic.

The moderators can assert authority by not only cutting the mics when candidates are talking out of turn, but when they need to stop talking altogether. You’ll remember that Trump kept talking over the moderators who just seemed to accept his impertinence. The public loses faith in a debate’s legitimacy when the people in charge are unable to control the participants.

The next issue is what to do about lies. According to CNN fact-checking reporter Daniel Dale, Trump “made at least 33 false claims” compared to “at least one false claim” from Harris. “What stood out was that this was a staggeringly dishonest debate performance from former President Trump. Just lie after lie on subject after subject,” said Dale. While many debaters often mislead and shade the truth, Trump continually, shamelessly, and blatantly lies. He knows that constantly repeated falsehoods will be believed as true by many. For example, he has constantly lied that everyone wanted Roe v Wade overturned and that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen. Moderators must cite and reject such false statements immediately. Debates serve not only to enlighten the public about candidates’ political philosophy but also about their integrity and character. If moderators don’t demand and ensure truthfulness, those latter qualities can never be accurately assessed.

And then there’s knowledge of subject matter. Imagine, for example, Donald Trump being asked to define Marxism/Communism/Fascism, or specifically why he considers climate change a hoax, or exactly how he intends to deport millions of people. Perhaps if he were facing debates specifically on those categories, he might feel compelled to better prepare for them.

Choosing our President is a serious business that requires a well-educated electorate. I hope I am not too aspirational (or perhaps too naïve) to wish for a more serious educational format to give us better information on which to base our choices.