What did we learn from the recent “debate” between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump? 

The answers are not much, not nearly enough and perhaps most importantly going forward, the current presidential debate process is broken.

After 90 minutes of a broadcast that included two breaks for commercials voters were not given all the information they wanted and needed to help them make informed voting decisions in November
 
It is broken because with few exceptions most of the presidential debates since 1980 have been hosted and by three television networks — ABC, NBC, AND CBS.

As hosts and producers of the debates these networks have had an outsized role to play in debate ground rules, develop debate questions, and selection of the debate moderators. 

The facts are result is the networks either consciously or unconsciously have biases that impact their decision making on the debates. Likewise, their moderators either consciously or unconsciously and subtlety or openly display their biases during the debate. 

There is a better way using a model on political discourse from a time shortly before the start of our civil war, widely viewed as a most divisive period in American history.

I suggest America is as deeply divided now.

Starting in 1854, Abraham Lincoln engaged in widely followed political dialogue on slavery with Stephen A. Douglas. 

All that dialogue was characterized by open, candid, civil, and issue-driven conversations focused on helping voters learn more about the views of the respective candidates. 

At one event, Douglas spoke for three hours followed by a three-hour presentation by Lincoln then an hour-long rebuttal from Douglas. 

These conversations with voters often included supporters applauding for their candidate. 

When that happened Douglas said, “My friends, silence will be more acceptable to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. I desire to address myself to your judgement, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasms.”

I suggest appealing to judgement, understanding and consciences of voters replace broadcasted debates with broadcasted candidate forums.

These forums could feature one candidate at a time in a 90-minute prime time broadcast. 

In that broadcast candidates could talk about whatever they wanted to, including, but not limited to why they want to be president, what has prepared them to serve, and what exactly they will strive to accomplish if elected. 

Speaking for a 90-minute forum will also be a way to demonstrate to voters their stamina, their understanding of issues, and their communication skills.

All of these qualities are essential to do well in the most demanding job in the world.

Candidate eligibility for a televised forum could be the same as those in place for the current debates — polling thresholds and appearing on enough state ballots to theoretically get a majority of electoral votes in the November election.

Those forums could be broadcast on a rotating basis starting with the broadcast network with the highest levels of viewership, then rebroadcast unedited, on all the other networks. 

In addition, verbatim unedited transcripts of the forums could be widely circulated by print and other electronic media outlets.

In a previous commentary I noted the Washington Post’s editorial board cited a Post and Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University survey reporting only three in ten residents of six of the most important states in this year’s presidential election trusted the media will fairly and accurately report political news. Post columnist Philip Bump has also  written “Americans simply don’t trust the media, particularly when it comes to politics.”

That lack of trust may not be totally eliminated with candidate forums, but it could be one step in restoring more trust.

Candidate forums could: 

Eliminate the media’s role on setting debate rules, preparing debate questions, serving as debate moderators, and offering their “fact checks” during an event.

Maximize voter’s opportunities to reach their own conclusions about candidates based on what they observe during a forum and/or read about after a forum. 

Provide all voters with easily accessible and more reliable information prior to voting.

Now more than ever, candidate forums instead of debates are an idea whose time has come.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters. Born and raised in Harrisburg, he was formerly active in the government and political arenas in Harrisburg and Philadelphia. He now lives and works from Easton on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.