Let the Pushiest Candidate Win the Debate? Is That Any Way to Pick a President?

The second half of the second Democratic primary debate – what were the organizers trying to do?

The Democratic debates so far give a big advantage to the candidates who are loudest, interrupt most often, or cause the most controversy. Is that really what Democrats want? If you want a loud, boorish, obnoxious president, well, we have one today. If you want nasty, just vote for Trump. Problem solved. None of the Democratic candidates will ever yell at or insult people as well as Donald Trump. Trump has that part locked up. So why does the debate format reward pushy behavior?

If one debater speaks more than another, that debater will probably win – not by being the best, but by having the most ideas heard. I explained a few weeks ago that a good debate format gives equal time to all the debaters. Indeed, Debate textbooks devote entire sections to debate formats. The format makes a difference. If you give extra time to one debater, you’re giving that debater an extra advantage. Every high school and college debate coach in the country knows to enforce strict time limits. The moderators on July 31 promised they would do that, but, of course, as usual, although they tried, they failed.

Moderator Jake Tapper explained the timing rules:

“As moderators, we will attempt to guide the discussion. You will each receive one minute to answer questions, 30 seconds for responses and rebuttals, and 15 additional seconds if a moderator asks for a clarification. The timing lights will remind you of these limits. Please respect them, and please refrain from interrupting other candidates during their allotted time. A candidate infringing on another candidate's time will have his or her time reduced.”

Fair enough except for a few catches: the moderators could ask for clarifications. That gave people extra time just because they failed to answer a question the first time. Debaters also got extra time if somebody criticized them. Since Biden got criticized a lot, he ended up getting extra time. For example, after Joe Biden made some comments, Andrew Yang asked the moderators, “May I, please?” Tapper gave him a chance to make a response. He then talked for some reasonable length about criminal justice. Toward the end of the debate, there were several instances of crosstalk. A debate moderator really shouldn’t let that happen.

Once again, the good people at FiveThirtyEight added up who spoke the most words. Joe Biden spoke 3819 words. Kamala Harris, who is also polling well, came in second with 3186 words. Elizabeth Warren got in 2805 words. Poor Andrew Yang came in last at 1710 words. Maybe that’s why Yang wanted to interrupt! In part, Biden got more speaking time because the other candidates criticized him, and he took advantage of the chance to respond. Every time they criticized Biden, they gave him more floor time, handing him a built-in time advantage! Rather self-defeating. But when one candidate gets almost twice the amount of speaking time as another, we’re talking about a debate format that has fallen apart at the seams. But let’s be frank: the pushiest candidates got more time.

On the one hand, yes, the public wants to hear from the front-runners. On the other hand, no, it’s not fair. And, also, no, you don’t want a pushover in the White House. Still, the candidates who get the most time to speak are going to be declared the winners of the debate. Nobody declared Andrew Yang or Michael Bennet to be the winners. How could they win? They didn’t get much speaking time. With this debate format, being a front-runner gives you more time to speak and makes you the winner. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy – and nothing more.

If I learned anything in more than 40 years of studying the subject, it is that structure and format are keys to good communication. 

P.S.: My beloved wife just reminded  that obnoxious college debaters often won the trophies. I won a few trophies in my day. Please don't draw any conclusions. Peace to all.