Why do people watch debates? Clearly, there is a horse-race quality to a candidate debate; people want to know who will “win” when the stakes are so high and the political atmosphere so intense. But there is more. Before voters go to the polls, they want to know where candidates stand on the issues, what leadership qualities the candidates possess, how they react under pressure, even what they look like. Voters want to comparison shop and to see the candidates meet head-on and face-to-face.

Think of ways we learn about candidates, 15, 30 or 60 second radio or TV spots produced by media advisors, letters seeking contributions written by professional fundraisers, news reports filtered through the eyes of reporters and of course, the internet with candidates websites and blogs. Compared to these, the candidate debate provides a direct opportunity to hear candidates speak for themselves, unrehearsed, without a prepared speech or script. Still, viewers need to watch debates with a careful eye. Television can emphasize image over substance. Good debaters are not necessarily better leaders.

CANDIDATE DEBATES: A BEHIND THE SCENES LOOK

At first glance, the purpose of a debate seems obvious - to provide voters with the information they need to make an intelligent choice at the polls. Debates also help to get the public interested in an election and to educate voters about the issues.

But those directly involved in debates may have other goals. For candidates, it is to get elected. Candidates weigh every debate decision whether to debate, what format is best, even what curtain colors and camera angles they want - with one question: “Will it help me win?” Television broadcasters who air the debate want to attract an audience with a lively show and a hot race. The debate that gets on the air is the result of delicate juggling of all these goals.

The juggling takes place in negotiating sessions between the debate sponsor, the candidates, and, in some cases, the broadcaster. Negotiations focus on such issues as the number, date, site and format for the debate. These negotiations often are long and difficult, and they may involve what seem to be small details.

A candidate debate can use any format that puts candidates face-to-face stating their views and responding to their opponents. Candidates tend to prefer safe formats that protect them from direct confrontation. The “modified press conference” is an example of this format in which a journalist poses a question, a candidate has several minutes to respond, the journalist poses a follow-up question and the same candidate responds. The next candidate goes through the same questioning process and then each has a chance to rebut, or refute, the opponent. This format guarantees each candidate equal time and takes advantage of the knowledge of a number of journalists. However, it provides little opportunity to challenge a candidate who is dodging a question and often allows the press to set the agenda for the debate; sometimes issues of most concern to the public and to the candidates are missed in the process.

Contrast the above format with the much less structured “single moderator format.” A single moderator poses questions to the candidates and is free to follow up immediately if a candidate ducks the question or responds with an answer that is too general. Candidates are given time to ask questions of each other. This format usually results in a much livelier interaction between candidates and tends to highlight differences in the candidates’ stands on the issues. However, it requires a skilled, well-informed moderator who is able to make sure all candidates get equal opportunity to present their views.

In some debates, audience questions are used, either live or prescreened. Formal opening and/or closing statements by the candidates often are included. Sometimes, several formats are combined in one debate. As you watch debates, consider the strengths and weaknesses of the format, and keep in mind that the format selected probably reflects a compromise reached by the candidates, the debate sponsor and possibly the broadcaster.

CANDIDATE PARTICIPATION

As you watch a debate, note who is and who is not included. Are minor party and/or independent candidates involved? Deciding whom to include in a debate is not always easy or obvious for debate sponsors. Some debate sponsors choose to include only major candidates in order to use the brief time available to give voters an opportunity to compare candidates with a realistic chance of winning. Other sponsors prefer to open the platform to all legally qualified candidates, providing voters with an opportunity to hear all candidates’ points of view.

IMPACT OF DEBATES

Most scholars agree that debates rarely cause a dramatic change in the course of an election. They seldom make a winner out of a long-shot nor can they destroy a candidate who is far ahead in the polls. In fact, studies of the impact of presidential debates show that debates tend to confirm the choices people have already made. According to these studies, even if a candidate makes a major mistake or says something supporters do not like during a debate, most supporters adjust their views in order to remain loyal to the original candidate.

This is not to say that debates do not shape voters’ opinions. In fact, they have the greatest impact on undecided voters. Watching a debate helps an uncommitted voter decide how to cast a ballot on election day.

In addition, studies show that debates influence voters in other important ways. Debates stimulate interest in the election and inform the public about the issues involved in the campaign as well as the candidates’ positions on those issues. They put candidates on the record, so they can be held accountable once in office. They help rally a candidate’s supporters to get involved in the campaign and to vote. And finally, they provide a great deal of information about the personalities of the candidates. In sum, candidate debates can play a vital role in our democracy.

Debates, though, will remain only as good as the public wants them to be. Because many candidates want safe debates - or all too often, no debates at all - it is up to the public to persuade candidates to debate and to accept better, more challenging formats. And then, it is up to the debate audience to evaluate the candidates - to differentiate between style and substance - and to make informed choices at the polls.

• Does it give all candidates equal opportunity to speak and to respond to opponents?
  
• Does it hold your interest?
  
• Does it allow the differences between the candidates to surface?
  
• Does it make it easy for the candidates to talk about the issues?
  
• Does it allow the candidates to state their views clearly?
  
• Does it allow the candidates to be pinned down?
  
• Does it give you insight into the candidates' personalities and leadership qualities?
  

• Is the moderator in control of the debate?
  
• Are the questions fair? Are they equally tough on all candidates?
  
• Are the questions clear? Is there enough information so that viewers understand the meaning of the answers? Are follow-up questions used to help pin down the candidates?
  
• Do the questions cover the important issues? Are there any major issues that are not mentioned?
  
• Does the moderator or do any of the panelists talk too much?
  
• Does the moderator allow each candidate the same amount of time to talk?
  

• Are you influenced by the age, sex, clothes, posture or other physical characteristics of the candidates? How?
  
• What impressions do the candidates convey as the debate progresses? Who appears more relaxed? More sincere? More confident?
  
• Who knows how to use television better? Do the candidates look directly at you (into the camera) or elsewhere (at the panelists, live audience, etc.)? Does this affect your overall impression of the candidates?
  

• Do the candidates answer or evade the questions?
  
• Do the candidates tell you their stands on issues or do they respond with emotional appeals and campaign slogans?
  
• Do the candidates give their own views, or do they mostly attack the opponent? Are the attacks personal or directed at the opponent's policies?
  
• Are the answers consistent with the candidates' previous positions?
  
• Is the candidate well informed? Do the candidates use facts and figures to help you understand or to confuse you?
  
• Are the answers realistic or are they just campaign promises?
  

• At what stage in the campaign is the debate taking place?
  
• What press coverage, if any, is there of the debate? Does it cover important issues or focus on attention-getting details (mistakes, slogans, etc.)?
  
• Did the debate change press coverage of the campaign? Are different issues emphasized?
  
• Did the candidates' ratings in the polls change after the debate?
  
• Has interest in the campaign changed? How?
  
• Have the behavior, policy positions or campaign strategy of either candidate changed? How?