Politicians, scholars and pundits often point to political debate as a means of solving a range of social problems. Productive political debate is seen as a key to combating polarization that promotes disagreement on social and economic issues.1
While there is no doubt that political debates can be a useful tool in closing the gap between dissenting parties, there are few studies that evaluate how people actually experience this dialogue in their daily lives. The study described here aims to fill this gap by asking whether ordinary Americans misperceive debate.
For many, the concept of a political debate is rooted in televised events such as presidential debates. Before television, candidates largely campaigned separately and were rarely able to contrast their strengths against the weaknesses of the opponent. But TV changed the game, with John F. Kennedy’s robust appearance and strong policy positions providing a stark contrast to Richard Nixon’s illness and inexperience.
In modern debates, each candidate is given 2 minutes to answer a question and then 1 minute to rebut the opponent’s argument. During the debate, the moderator uses color-coded lights resembling traffic signals (green indicating 30 seconds left, yellow indicating 15 seconds and red indicating only 5 seconds remain) to signal when each candidate is close to running out of time.
Previous studies have shown that public debate screenings increase voters’ general political knowledge, and in the case of Sierra Leone’s elections, elected MPs who participated in debates were more likely to spend their budget allocations on their constituencies. These positive effects are largely due to the fact that debates provide voters with information they wouldn’t otherwise receive, such as details about specific candidates’ policies and their priorities.
About the Author
