Let America Decide

Executive Summary

The 1992 presidential general election debates were a great improvement over those of the past decade. For the first time, both major-party nominees shared the stage with an independent candidate in a series of three-way debates. For the first time, the debates featured a variety of formats, including a town hall meeting forum in which citizens directly questioned those seeking the nation's highest office. These innovations helped generate substantial public interest. The 1992 debates were the most widely watched political event in American history, with an audience that grew larger with each debate. They focused public attention on the choice to be made on election day and dominated public discussion in the weeks leading up to the voting. Most important, they provided voters with valuable firsthand information, and after the election more people than ever before reported that they had relied on the debates in making their choice in the presidential balloting.

Yet, despite the ultimate success of the 1992 forums, few realize how close the nation came to not having debates or to having debates that did not include the independent candidate Ross Perot. Although the Commission on Presidential Debates announced a debate proposal well before the national party conventions, its efforts failed to discourage the candidates from engaging in the kinds of political posturing and lengthy debate about debates that had marred the planning of these events in the past. The Commission's plan was accepted by the Clinton campaign but was immediately rejected by the Bush campaign, which maintained that debates could only be determined through direct negotiations between the two campaigns. In contrast, the Clinton staff argued that the Commission should participate in any discussions. The two camps also argued over the number of debates to be held, where they should take place, and the formats to be used. These differences led to a prolonged period of disagreement between the candidates, which raised a very real possibility that debates might not be held at all.

This deadlock was finally broken less than six weeks before the election, when the representatives of the Bush and Clinton campaigns negotiated a debate agreement. They decided to include Ross Perot and his running mate, former admiral James Stockdale, in the debates, a stipulation to which the Commission had not yet consented. This forced the Commission to confront the issue of whether Perot should participate, an issue that was not resolved until the first week of October, less than a month before election day. Thus, a different 1992 outcome was only narrowly avoided. Had the major-party nominees disagreed on Perot's participation, there probably would have been no debates. Had the Commission decided not to include Perot, the current debates process would have been permanently undermined.

Given the 1992 experience and the rapid changes taking place in the national political environment, the Twentieth Century Fund decided that it was an appropriate time to convene a Task Force to assess the role of debates in presidential elections and to consider ways to improve them in the future. The Task Force, which met four times during 1995, was given a broad mandate to examine the major issues associated with these prestigious events. Our principal objective was to ensure substantive general election debates in the future. We believed that this goal would only be achieved by strengthening the Commission on Presidential Debates as an institution, by further improving the formats used in the debates, and by enhancing the quality of media coverage and public discussion accompanying the debates.

Among the Task Force's principal conclusions are the following:

1. The Commission on Presidential Debates should develop a more broadly based membership to reflect better the public's interest in the debates process. As a beginning step, its membership should be expanded from the current ten members to twelve so that individuals who do not specifically represent the two major parties can be included. If the Commission is to retain its position as debate sponsor, it must have the confidence and respect of an increasingly cynical electorate. While we believe that party interests should be represented in the debates process, we also feel that the Commission should not be exposed to misperceptions or criticisms that may result from its bipartisan membership, because these charges may undermine its status. One way to address this concern is to ensure that the Commission includes members who are perceived as representative of broader public interests than those of the two major parties. Such representation is especially important now since a significant proportion of the electorate is not committed to either major party and a strong possibility exists for a meaningful third or fourth candidate in a future presidential race.
2. The Commission should adopt specific and public procedures for appointing members. In addition, the terms of members should be staggered, with each member appointed to a renewable four-year term with a limit of no more than two consecutive terms of service. Given its role in the presidential selection process, the Commission should operate with more openness and public accountability. Most of the public does not know who the Commission's members are, or how they are chosen. Nor do they know how its Advisory Board works, or how it is chosen. Most would be surprised to find out that the Commission is a self-perpetuating body with no provision for regular change in membership. Specific, well-publicized procedures that ensure a reasonable rotation in membership would enhance the Commission's institutional legitimacy and promote the incorporation of new perspectives and ideas in its decisionmaking.
3. The Commission must continue to expand its public presence and civic education activities. The fundamental purpose of candidate debates is to promote a more informed citizenry. A debate sponsor therefore has an obligation to encourage public understanding of the debates process and engage in efforts that will make the debates more meaningful to voters. The Commission has undertaken a number of laudable civic education projects, but the efforts to date have been relatively limited in scope. The Task Force supports the Commission's current initiative to establish citizen debate-watch programs around the country and urges it to pursue additional means of promoting citizen education and participation in the process. In particular, the Commission should explore opportunities for building a debate component into existing voter education and outreach programs. It should also make all of its materials available through interactive formats so that they can receive as wide distribution as possible.
4. An endowment should be created for the Commission on Presidential Debates. At present, the Commission relies on annual private contributions for its funding. A more stable financial base will increase its institutional strength and provide it with the resources needed to conduct more extensive public outreach and educational efforts. An endowment will reduce the Commission's dependence on sponsors who must be approached on a regular basis at a time when corporate and foundation resources face greater and greater pressures. It will also guard against the possibility of Commission members being distracted from other activities by fund-raising demands.
5. The purpose of general election debates is to provide the public with an opportunity to see the major candidates confront each other so that voters may learn more about the individuals who will be the next president and vice president of the United States. The process must therefore ensure that the major candidates are invited to participate. Ross Perot's 1992 independent candidacy and the prospect of other significant non-major-party candidates in future elections led the Task Force to give serious consideration to the question of who should be invited to participate in the debates. The Commission has addressed this issue by developing a set of criteria designed to determine those candidates who have a "realistic" or "more than theoretical" chance of being elected the next president and vice president of the United States. The Task Force recognizes, however, the importance to the legitimacy of the process of guarding against the possibility of a candidate being excluded from the debates on the "realistic chance" criteria alone, even though that candidate enjoys substantial public support and is considered by many citizens to be worthy of inclusion in the debates. To avoid this possibility, the Commission should review its criteria to ensure that "any candidate with broad public support and a real likelihood of having a substantial impact on the outcome of the election" is invited to participate in the debates.
6. Debates best fulfill their purpose when conducted in a series employing different formats. A series of varied debates offers candidates a better opportunity to make their cases to the electorate and places viewers in a better position to assess each candidate. At a minimum, there should be four presidential debates and one vice presidential debate prior to each election. At least one of the presidential debates should be held in early September to help stimulate public interest in the race and begin the process of focusing voters' attention on the choice they will face in November. As for the scheduling of the remaining debates, the Task Force favors continuing experimentation with the compacted, "mini-series" approach used in 1992, with the series scheduled in the final weeks of October. This approach ensures that debates are held when public interest in the campaign is reaching a peak and the people are most likely to watch.
7. Future debates should feature continued citizen participation and bolder, more innovative formats that stimulate interaction and actual debate between the candidates. The Task Force was encouraged by the changes adopted in 1992 and feels that a town hall meeting debate or some other form of direct citizen participation should be included in future debates. But we also believe that even bolder innovations are necessary if debates are to fulfill their purpose of creating a more informed electorate. In particular, a direct candidate-to-candidate confrontation is long overdue. We therefore feel that at least one of the presidential debates should use a format that requires candidates to question each other directly and discuss what they consider the major issues in the race.
8. Debates are most effective when they are broadcast at times likely to attract a wide audience. The Commission, networks, and candidates must work together to ensure that debates are given the highest priority and that they are broadcast in prominent prime-time slots. All of the parties involved in the process must be sensitive to the scheduling concerns raised in previous debates. In particular, the networks should give higher priority to these events and demonstrate a greater willingness to alter their regular programming so that debates can be broadcast when most people are likely to be watching. Broadcasters should also expand their efforts to promote debates and increase the number of public service announcements dedicated to them.
9. Debate broadcasts should be expanded to include more networks and additional time slots. Given the expansion that has taken place in cable television, there is no reason why debate broadcasts should be limited to the evenings on which they take place or to networks that have traditionally covered them. The Task Force urges other networks to consider broadcasting or rebroadcasting the debates. By doing so, these networks will provide a larger share of the electorate with a chance to watch the debates and will create opportunities to see the debates more than once, which may further enhance their role in voter decisionmaking.
10. Journalists should enhance their coverage of debates so that voters have the background information needed to make debates more meaningful. They should place less emphasis on polling and strategy and devote more attention to the substance of the debates. The Task Force concluded that current media coverage of the debates, which is dominated by polling analyses and the "horse race" aspects of these events, minimizes the educational value of the debates. We recognize that such horse race stories are inevitable, but we believe a much better job could be done in providing more balanced coverage. This is especially true in the days leading up to each debate since current reporting largely fails to provide voters with the contextual and substantive information needed to understand and assess better what they have heard in the debates. By improving the quality of debate coverage, journalists can help encourage critical thinking and independent judgment on the part of the electorate.

The information and positions discussed by the Task Force before reaching its conclusions, as well as other specific recommendations for reforming the debates process, are provided in the text of the Report.