Editor's Note:
Diana B. Carlin is Professor Emeritus of Communication at Saint Louis University.
She has researched political debate since 1980 and is the author or co-author of 15 articles and books on debate, including "The 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus."
Mitchell S. McKinney is professor of communication and director of the Institute for Political Communication at the University of Missouri.
He is the author or co-author of nine books exploring political campaign communication, including "An Unprecedented Election: Media, Communication, and the Electorate in the 2016 Campaign."
The opinions expressed here are those of the authors.
Read more opinion at cnne.com/opinion
(CNN) -
It is unlikely that someone will make a hiring decision without interviewing you, based solely on some combination of the candidate's resume, testimonials from family members, comments on social media, and defamatory accusations from anonymous critics.
That is why we do not agree with those who want to rule out presidential debates, which is the metaphorical equivalent of a presidential job interview.
That metaphor is commonly used by the focus groups that we have conducted since 1992 to explain why citizens see these events.
And we hope voters will want to rewatch the "interview" between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden on Sept. 29, the first of three presidential debates scheduled before the Nov. 3 election.
Over the years, during the course of our research, we have heard many of the arguments for abolishing debates.
The main ones are that they do not change the votes, they are not nouns, they do not present new information and they encourage candidates to play with witty phrases that are picked up by the media.
In the spirit of debate, we answer every argument here.
First, the objection that debates do not influence the outcome of the elections because they do not change the opinion of the voters.
In closed elections like 2000 and 2016, where narrow margins in one or a few key states determined the outcome, debates could make a difference.
The 2016 exit polls, for example, showed that 21% of voters said that Supreme Court appointments were "the most important factor" in their choice - the subject of the first 15 minutes of the third debate - with 56% of those polled voting for Trump.
LOOK: Joe Biden: what you should know about the political proposals of the Democratic presidential candidate before the CNN forum
In our opinion, they were among Trump's most effective 15 minutes of the entire campaign.
He reminded the hesitant Republicans, after the uproar over their lewd comments on the tape "Access Hollywood," why they wanted a Republican in the White House.
Our research with pre and post debate polls consistently shows that debates influence indecisive and hesitant viewers.
It is true that many voters use debates to confirm their voting choice, not to change it.
However, in this election year, where the pool of undecided is small, but millions of young Americans are eligible to vote for the first time, debates could be crucial in shaping the choices of new voters and deciding the outcome.
Then there is the argument that the debates are not substantive and do not present new information.
If true, that makes a compelling case for eliminating them.
However, our research shows that these accusations are not based on what viewers of the debate believe, but rather on what political experts think.
Viewers want debates and the numbers prove it.
In 2016, two of the three Clinton-Trump clashes set all-time debate audience records, with the first drawing a total of 84 million viewers, according to data from Nielsen, the largest audience in debate history. televised events that began with the meeting between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960.
Many studies reveal that viewers get important information from discussions.
Our reviews of hundreds of focus group transcripts since 1992 show that each group had members who say they learned something new.
Knowledge gained from first-time debates and leaning but unengaged voters increases confidence in your choice and may even influence your decision to go to the polls.
The town hall debate format, in particular, provides a way for voters' agendas to be heard.
Our research team's analyzes of both the content and the effects of the forum reveal several distinct benefits.
Unlike some journalist-led debates, questions posed by citizens generally reflect the issues cited as most important to the public.
Candidates tended to be less combative (although this was not the case in 2016) and more receptive to questions from voters than from reporters they are more likely to engage in combat with or simply ignore.
Onlookers at the town hall also found this event more engaging and reported increased political interest and a decrease in political cynicism after being exposed to an exchange at the town hall.
The last objection relates more to the debates in the primary elections than to the general ones.
The primary debates, especially those that took place during the 2020 campaign, were by commercial cable with multiple interlocutors and designed to provoke audience response and conflict between the candidates, because the drama created is supposed to increase the audience and the advertising dollars.
There is no comparison between these and commercial-free general election debates sponsored by a privately funded nonpartisan group, a joint source, and a single moderator.
Yes, they both have an audience, but the general election debate audience typically adheres to the request not to applaud or react to the candidates' witty phrases.
The 2020 primary formats violated all the good standards of political debate.
They did not let each candidate respond on all issues and there were large differences in time allocation between candidates.
As a result, primary debaters often went out of their way to get attention and spend time.
In general election debates, the format provides an opportunity for candidates to answer the same set of questions.
With 15-minute segments typically devoted to just six topics in two of the debates and nine 10-minute segments each in the vice presidential debate, there is less need to interrupt and talk about the other candidate.
If the media focuses on drama and short sentences rather than substance, then journalists, not debates, are to blame.
MORE: ANALYSIS |
Someone must remind Donald Trump that Bob Woodward is not President of the United States
Debates have been a part of the American political scene since James Madison and James Monroe debated for a congressional seat and Abraham Lincoln served as the Whig party's alternate debater on days when presidential candidates were not campaigning publicly.
Instead of eliminating time-honored debates, whether primary or general, why not keep improving them?
The single moderator format is far superior to that of the panel;
Eliminating the audience is a reasonable way to end interruptions and using fair formats and turning off the microphone of anyone other than the speaker can reduce the food fight atmosphere.
And this pandemic year has shown that a virtual debate with online questions from voters can easily replace city hall.
Nothing in a democracy is perfect and nothing in political debates is perfect.
But they remain, based on public opinion and sound research, the best way to communicate candidates' positions and differences to the public.