Political debate is an important tool in the democratic process, allowing candidates to sharpen their views in a structured format and communicate with voters. Research in political science supports the intuitive notion that voters learn more about a candidate during a debate than from campaign events alone, and that these lessons can influence voter perceptions and ultimately sway electoral outcomes. In addition to determining how voters perceive a debate, the structure of the event itself—whether in rapid-fire questions or a relaxed town hall—can affect whether a candidate appears competent or relatable.
Since its creation in 1987, the Commission has overseen debates between candidates for major national offices – until this year, when the campaigns of Harris and Biden independently negotiated an agreement to hold network-produced debates without CPD involvement. In addition to defining debate formats, the CPD also selects moderators, defines debate rules and mechanisms for citizen participation, and determines dates and venues for these events.
The CPD also develops a set of nonpartisan criteria for the extension of debate invitations to presidential and vice presidential candidates. This includes a review of the candidates’ positions on key issues, their ability to articulate their views, and their record of public service. The debates are also open to the press and to the public.
While many Americans believe that political debate is common, new research suggests that this belief is largely misguided. A study by Columbia Business School Professor Modupe Akinola and colleagues, including UC Berkeley’s Erica Bailey and CBS Ph.D. student Sheena Iyengar, found that people most often debate with close friends and family members. This in-person dialogue leads to more productive communication and can leave participants feeling positive.