July Column Winner

It's time to modernize the Presidential Debate format

By Jacob Sturm, Mustang Times

With the General Elections just around the corner, it is important for voters to be as knowledgeable and well prepared to make decisions at the polls.

That’s what made last month’s Presidential Debate such a travesty, and doesn’t provide a hint of optimism of the discussion-driven format getting better anytime soon.

Let’s face it. The Presidential Debate is an old-school, out-of-touch method of getting information to voters. Long gone are the days where cable television’s broadcast the debate made any difference in what decision voters make. 

Chances are, if you watched the most recent debate, you weren’t watching for the candidates’ gravitas toward the subjects important to American interests. In fact, I would guess more people watching the elections already had their minds made up before the opening remarks from either candidate.

The debates are now used more as a way to generate buzz, incite emotions and take the attention through nonsensical means. Take June 27’s debate for example. I’ve heard multiple conversations in the past few weeks referencing the golf comments that happened between the candidates at the time, yet the policy each of those candidates could propose didn’t draw the same traction in those general conversations.

Then factor in President Biden’s decision to suddenly drop out of the upcoming race this past week, and any information the public could glean from the Democrat nominee June 27 is rendered moot.

To me, as a result of the political gulf that only  seems to be increasing between Democrats and Republicans, I don’t think people will be swayed away from the party they affiliate with regardless of  what is said or seen in a public forum.

So, what can we do about it? 

I see two paths forward. The first is continuing the same Presidential Debate model and finding a more effective way to hold the candidates accountable for actions and comments they make in the moment. Th at requires a mutually agreed upon moderator and enough respect to follow the rules of a debate. 

Good luck getting that to happen, especially in this day and age where divisiveness can be a viable strategy to run on as long as the party affiliations match to voters. 

Perhaps more instantaneous fact checking can be used for the public’s benefit to counter some of the concerns. Another thought could include the debates locking candidates into the race, essentially preventing any party from pulling a switcheroo with so little time before the public is faced with the decision. 

But let’s get back to the debate format with  the second path I would consider, which requires a few extra hoops for people to jump through, but has the potential for a much more informative experience.

To start, candidates will not be in the same place or interact with each other. Instead, they will speak to different moderators about their policies and have the events on television at the same time. That way would prevent one party’s candidate from essentially doing a rebuttal of the other party as their presentation to the voters.  

No golf talk. No shouting over each other. No frustrations about getting less time or not being able to respond. Just the relevant information to help voters understand more about the candidates.

Of course that requires people genuinely on the fence about who they will vote for to record both broadcasts, and could result in candidates speaking into an echo chamber and not getting public dialogue between the candidates to challenge those policy stances.
 
That’s where doing research on your own, especially from trusted sources, can help. 

Regardless of which of those paths you prefer, one thing is certain... finding a modernized and improved solution to counter the farcical nature of recent debates is essential to empowering Americans with increased knowledge when they are at the polls. 

It’s about time to do just that.