Which is more effective for political campaigns: Debates or town meeting formats?

Debates

1 of 2

by Christine Zibas

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

True democracy is participatory, so it follows that town hall meetings must be better venues for learning about the candidates than debates, right? If the 2008 election is any indication, the answer is a resounding NO! It would be great if American citizens could ask the questions that are on their minds and get solid answers. In a town hall meeting, this is just as unlikely (perhaps even more so) than as at a debate. Why?

First, town hall settings are usually carefully monitored arenas for candidates to get questions from supporters. Most rallies are attended by those citizens already in support of the candidate. Think about it. How many people are willing to stand in line for hours to attend a candidate appearance by the party they are unlikely to vote for on the off chance that they may be selected to ask a question?The answer, not many.

Secondly, these carefully crafted venues are designed to get maximum exposure for a candidate as he or she criss-crosses the country, making as many stops as possible in as many locations as possible within the shortest possible time frame. Although it would be nice to think that the candidate could stop and answer questions until everyone is satisfied at the town hall meeting, this just isn't feasible on a tight campaign schedule.

A debate, on the other hand, brings both candidates together to answer questions and challenge what has been said by the opponent. The questioner is likely to be someone in the media who is well versed in the issues of the day and able to get in the maximum number of questions possible in the time allotted. Even the televised town hall-style debate in the 2008 election was the least effective appearance by both candidates for president.

The televised town hall debate wasted a lot of time introducing people, having the candidates walk around onstage, having the moderator argue that candidates were not following their own rules, and generally getting the audience sidetracked with theatrics instead of "straight talking." Contrast this with the televised debates with a single moderator, which allowed candidates to not only answer questions but to challenge each other, and get to the heart of pressing matters.

In a debate forum, it's more more difficult for either candidate to avoid answering a question, or when a candidate tries this tactic, to be called out on it by the moderator or the opposing candidate. While debates appear not to consider the opinions of the public, new techologies are allowing candidates to answer questions put to them via online participation. The moderator can work the flow without awkward gaps and theatrical distractions. The moderator can dig to the heart of the matter without wasting time, as well as ensuring the tough questions will be asked in the limited amount of time given. And the moderator call follow up on unanticipated statements made by each candidate, something that is impossible in a town hall meeting where as many people as possible must be squeezed in.

In short, although democracy is participatory, the town hall style forum really offers the voting public little more than another candidate appearance with carefully staged questions from voters already likely to support that candidate in the first place. A moderated debate is more likely to challenge each side with tough questions by making the candidates stay "on topic" and accountable, thus more truly serving voters' need to know, which is the reason these meetings are held in the first place.

Learn more about this author, Christine Zibas.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.