Political debate is a core aspect of American politics, giving voters a chance to see candidates on the same stage and discuss their differences. However, despite their importance, debates have become increasingly chaotic and uncivil. For example, Gerald Ford’s 1976 foreign policy answer stating “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” is widely considered one of the most memorable debate gaffes.
Unlike traditional campaign ads, where candidates spend a majority of their time acclaiming themselves and their accomplishments, debates allow for more candid discussion of issues that matter to voters. They also give candidates a chance to expose their weaknesses in ways that would be difficult in more scripted campaigns. But, as political polarization grows, some candidates are avoiding debates or seeking to schedule fewer of them. Anthony Sparacino, a University of Richmond political science professor, explains why this might be happening.
When first introduced, presidential debates were meant to highlight a candidate’s platform in order to inform undecided voters. The Lincoln-Douglas debate between Adlai Stevenson and David Crooks, for example, emphasized the platforms of each candidate, as opposed to their personal qualities.
Today, however, presidential and congressional debates are primarily focused on attacking each other, with very little discussion of specific policies. This article examines the causes of these deteriorating trends and proposes some ideas for improving productive debate. In a series of studies, we manipulate the key features of debate by varying the number of participants, moderators, and questions, as well as the types of arguments made. We find that promoting evidence-based justifications, signaling willingness to compromise, and being respectful independently increase the probability of high-quality open-text responses.
About the Author
