When political debates first emerged in the early 1960s, they were intended to help voters learn more about candidates and to make comparisons. Today, however, debates can seem like a tired ritual. Most voters already have become fairly familiar with the major candidates and their positions from many months of campaign events and extensive media coverage.
Moreover, the general format of the debates can leave them feeling like hybrids of Sunday morning interviews and gladiatorial clashes. Both campaigns and their surrogates view the debates as a way to communicate core political messages, clarify distinctions between and among the candidates and respond to attacks from opponents.
Debate rules require candidates to be statistically viable in order to participate — meaning that they must have a reasonably good chance of winning enough electoral votes. The Working Group heard views arguing that it is time to reconsider this standard, given that the presidential race has shifted toward centrist parties and independent/non-aligned candidates have made strong statewide showings in recent years.
In addition, the recurring costs of debates have grown disproportionate to their value: Hosting universities spend substantial money to retrofit facilities for the venue and to accommodate thousands of audience members, media and staff. There are also the expenses incurred in providing transportation systems to shuttle Secret Service motorcades and crowds of candidates, surrogates and supporters to and from the site.
Other costs can include paying for moderators and creating space for the “spin alley” where senior campaign officials engage with the press during and after the event. The Working Group believes that these expenses can be reduced by changing the process by which questions are gathered and curated.