Keep Audiences Out of Debates--Forever

[Uncle Joe]

Sunday night’s crowd-free Biden-Sanders showdown was the most serious and substantive yet.

(snip)

Presidential debates, much less their precise format, are far from enshrined in the American political tradition. There were no such debates until the 1960 bout between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (though the Republicans held a debate between their primary opponents in 1948, and the Democrats followed course in 1956). Then, after the 1960 duel, whose telecast might have won the election for the dashing JFK, no debates took place for the next 16 years.

The custom was revived with the contest between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976. The event was sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a truly nonpartisan organization, which set the rules, selected the moderators, vetted the studio audiences, and instructed them to be quiet. The League sponsored the next two debates as well (Carter vs. Ronald Reagan in 1980, Reagan vs. Walter Mondale in ’84), but then pulled out before the 1988 contest, complaining that the campaigns were demanding too large a say in setting the rules and packing the hall. The group’s trustees released a statement:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity, and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

(snip)

But Sunday night’s contest showed that, in the absence of a crowd cheering on the combatants’ more pandering tendencies, a debate can be a useful exercise after all—a way to gauge the candidates’ views and character.

(snip)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/debate-audience-coronavirus-biden-sanders.html

I agree with the author's take that being audience free added to the quality of the debate.

[COLGATE4]

1. Couldn't agree with you more

The no-audience format does a great service to the candidates and, more importantly to the voters.

[NBachers]

2. Yup- I endorse this.

[drray23]

3. I agree with that.

It forced the candidates to focus on the debate rather than producing zingers for the audience to get applause.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Absolutely!

[customerserviceguy]

5. I agree

No "zingers" to get laughs made the debate much more substantive. However, Colbert's show without an audience was worse than with a live audience.

[Wednesdays]

6. K and freaking R!

I'm tired of the debates becoming a circus.

[fierywoman]

7. There was a fascinating interview with Justice Sotomayor with Trevor Noah where

she put forward the idea that broadcasting the Senate actually worked against anyone working with anyone else because the truth is, since the broadcasts, there's never anyone in the chamber and the speakers tend to pander to the camera and it's audience.

[The Mouth]

8. A few weeks ago, I would have said "hell no"

But it's pretty bloody obvious now.

Good post, K&R

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. I think part of it was because there were just two participants, but it was clear that the lack

of an audience made them rely more on substance and less on playing to the live audience.

[mcar]

10. I agree

[William769]

11. For once we agree on something.