General Election Debates – Problems and Solutions


Trina Vella
Abstract

Pre-election debates are one of the most important steps in the electoral process – indeed, they serve an important public interest as they inform the American public about the issues of the day and offer a forum by which candidate proposed solutions may be heard. However, pre-election debates are led by moderators who generally do not have expertise in many of their key topic areas, such as law or judicial studies; and because of this, the propositions and arguments made by candidates in the pre-election time may be de-contextualized during debates such that the voting public may be misled in terms of the practicality of candidate positions. It is not unusual for individuals to unwittingly make propositions which insufficiently account for the confines of governmental structures, norms, and institutions in important ways.  Likewise, it is not expectable for candidate to have absolute expertise in all areas of the debate, such as from health care to international law. This presents a real and pressing problem or issue for the quality of debates and democracy. It would be useful for pre-election debates to have additional facilitators present to provide basic factual and scientific information, as well to define key terms and principles relevant to American government and political life. Thus, given the current format of pre-election debates, this policy brief offers proposals to increase voter awareness and thus strengthen American democracy through amendments to the pre-election debate format for general elections.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biography
Trina Vella, McMaster University.
PhD candidate (ABD) of Political Science at McMaster University.
References
Baynton, D. C. (1996). Forbidden signs: American culture and the campaign against sign language. University of Chicago Press.
Benoit, W. L. (2013). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. Lexington Books.
Fridkin, K., & Gershon, S. A. (2020). Nothing More than Feelings? How Emotions Affect Attitude Change during the 2016 General Election Debates. Political Communication, 1-18.
Krieg, G and Diaz, D. (2016). “Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton II: The nastiest lines”. CNN. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/presidential-debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-quotes/index.html (Accessed: November 27, 2020)
Lavazza, A. and Mirko, F. (2020). The role of experts in the Covid-19 pandemic and the limits of their epistemic authority in democracy. Frontiers in Public Health, 8.
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Rose, M. & Wulf, A. (2002). Location variation in American sign language. Sign Language Studies, 2(4):407-440.
Peifer, J. T. & Holbert, R. L. (2013). Developing a systematic assessment of humor in the context of the 2012 US general election debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 286-300.
Stokoe, W. C. (2014). Problems in Sign Language Research. In: Schlesinger I. M. and Namir, L. (2014). Sign Language of the Deaf: Psychological, Linguistic, and Sociological Perspectives, US: Academic Press