When political debate veers into the territory of personal attacks, character assassination and smear campaigns, the result is not only a loss of credibility for all participants, but also a breakdown in civil discourse. In a world where vitriol seems to have become normal, it’s important to remember that the goal of a debate is to have an open discussion about issues that affect voters’ lives.
Political debates are a cornerstone of democracy. When citizens are able to hear candidates’ stances on their top priorities and how they plan to implement them, it allows them to determine the best fit for their vote. While some candidates choose to avoid debates, it is common for voters to become familiar with a candidate across many campaign events over the course of months or even years before they participate in a debate.
Each debate is structured with two candidates, one moderator and a set amount of time to respond to questions. The questions are selected by the moderator based on public input and prioritized by importance and relevance. Candidates are given two minutes to answer each question, and may take 30 seconds to rebut their opponent’s argument. After answering each question, a candidate is informed of how much time they have left with a color-coded light system (similar to traffic lights) that signals green for 30 seconds, yellow for 15 and red for 5 seconds.
Despite the long history of political debate, Americans have misperceptions about both the frequency and format of the event. A recent study from Columbia Business School Professor Modupe Akinola and coauthors, including UC Berkeley Ph.D. student Erica Bailey and CBS PhD candidate Mike White, finds that while American voters have a positive view of the value of political debates, they also have a negative perception of both the content of the debates and how often they occur.