The Pros And Cons Of Presidential Debates

I am a voter writing to you out of concern for the state of our current presidential debates. As they allow presidential campaigns to be expanded upon, enable viewers to make judgements, and establish the differences between the candidates’ positions, debates are one of the primary resources I use to decide how I will vote. However, I have come to the conclusion that the debates of today are not achieving their goal of enabling citizens to make conscientious decisions. After researching the experiences of many other voters, I have determined I am not alone in this belief. Disturbingly, there has been almost no change to presidential debate formats since 1992, when the single moderator and town hall styles were implemented. As so much in respect to technology and society has changed in the past two decades, it is surprising that no serious updates have been made. Concerningly, viewership is decreasing and the general audience perception of how well the debates are conducted is going down as well. If we are to stop this

To begin with, a good debate is well structured and moderated. The moderator should set clear standards for the time allotted for each candidate to speak and must be fair in treatment, being equally strict or lenient with all candidates involved. Additionally, the time each candidate is on camera should be equal. When one candidate talks or is on screen for longer a bias is formed in the viewer’s mind that favors the candidate they have prolonged exposure to. Finally, the interlocutors and the audience must be respectful and deferential to the moderator and the rules of the debate. If a debate does not have equality in moderation and adherence to the debate’s rules by the participants, viewers are provided with an imperfect representation of the candidates and their