This article is an on-site version of our Swamp Notes newsletter. Sign up here to receive the newsletter directly to your inbox every Monday and Friday.
Hello Swampians,
Over the past few years, I have enjoyed corresponding with many of you as an editor of this newsletter. But today, I am stepping to the other side to write about last week’s Republican debate.
The televised primary debate has become a customary event during election seasons, even if a certain candidate decided to skip it this time. Despite the absence of the frontrunner, nearly 13 million viewers tuned in to watch eight candidates attempt to fill his shoes. However, amidst the quippy one-liners, insults, and occasional policy discussions, what did voters truly gain? Very little, I would argue.
Today’s US political debates are simply inadequate, and voters deserve better. While there have been ongoing efforts to address these issues, I want to highlight two major problems that persist.
Firstly, the sheer number of participants makes it impossible to have a meaningful exchange of ideas. Even with new rules aimed at reducing the number of candidates (three declared candidates did not make the cut), eight candidates were still too many. Each candidate had limited speaking time, with the candidate with the most airtime, Mike Pence, speaking for less than 13 minutes. The quietest candidate, Asa Hutchinson, spoke for a total of seven and a half minutes. Within those two hours, only 27 topics were discussed, leaving little time for a thoughtful conversation on any one issue.
Interestingly, this debate was not even the most crowded we have seen. In the 2016 Republican primary and the 2020 Democratic primary, up to 10 candidates debated on stage at once, with the entire field split across two stages.
Secondly, being a good debater does not necessarily reflect a candidate’s ability to effectively govern. While effective communication is important for a president, choosing the “winner” of a debate based on noise and theatrics is not beneficial. This only results in meme-worthy moments and campaign ad material. Recent academic research has shown that debates have negligible impact, even as political theater. A study published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics analyzed 56 televised debates across 31 elections in seven nations, including the US, UK, Germany, and Canada. The study found that debates did not help undecided voters make up their minds or induce voters to change their minds.
So, here’s a modest proposal: let’s make debates more like doctoral thesis defenses. Candidates will receive the debate topics in advance and have the opportunity to prepare thoughtful responses. Their policy proposals would be published, and during the debate, moderators and rival candidates could challenge them on their published work. This format would keep the debates focused and provide insight into the candidates’ policy advisors. After all, a successful presidency relies not only on the individual in office but also on the team surrounding them.
Changing the format would make debates a more useful tool for voters, allowing for substantive and fact-based discussions. Until we find a better solution, the current format will continue to contribute to polarization and the trivialization of the political process. As of now, debates are a necessary, albeit flawed, aspect of our democracy.
“No sane candidate would treat the debate as unimportant,” said Bob Shrum, longtime Democratic strategist and current director of the Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California.
While it may not be realistic to do away with debates entirely, their current format is a waste of time, energy, and money. “They do not contribute to what we hope campaigns do, which is help voters make the best, informed choice when they vote,” said Caroline Le Pennec, assistant professor of economics at HEC Montreal.
Now, Alec, I’d like to hear your thoughts. How do you think we can better inform the US electorate? What format do you believe would be more useful for political debates? Or should we consider alternative solutions?
Recommended reading and listening:
– My colleagues have written an in-depth piece on Vivek Ramaswamy, examining his past and the criticisms surrounding his promises on the campaign trail.
– Anna Nicolaou’s profile of overnight music star Oliver Anthony, who has become a figure for conservative media commentators.
– Jordan Salama’s article in Curbed about migrant children and their families who sell candy in the New York City subway, offering a poignant perspective on their lives.
If you’re looking to take a break from politics, I highly recommend the Real Survival Stories podcast. It’s a great way to clear your mind of the noise.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
