Transcripts For CSPAN Future Of Campaign Debates At City Clu

Radio and television stations here in ohio and we have been involved with the Ohio Debate Commission since its inception last year with many stations around the state airing the gubernatorial and u. S. Senate debates organized by the fall. Sion last political debate has been an integral part of the american all levelsrocess at and yet over the last decade debates between candidates seeking Political Office has declined. Effort,not for lack of as community and civic groups, including the city club, as well stations and other media organizations, have debates only to have candidates, often incumbents, refusing invitations, to debate opponents or desiring debates. Oreographed in 2006, the city club famously uninvited two gubernatorial candidates after their refusal to participate in an unscripted debate. Debates hasver gained momentum. Proliferation of social media, and other online platforms, has given candidates withtunities to connect audiences in ways debates used to provide. To debates, there is often no agreedupon sense of, no shared best practices and no clear idea to lookat debates ought like or accomplish. All things weve seen in the debates among Democratic Candidates for the president of the united states. To preserve political debates as part of the democratic process, several have created Debate Commissions with the goal to convene highquality debates substantive role in informing citizens about issues ballot. Idates on the in 2018, the ohio debate joiningon was formed, indiana, utah, and washington as states with this type of statewide collaboration. How are they working . And what should the future of look like . We have assembled a panel of to discussperts these questions and guiding todays conversation is city malthrop. Dan mr. Malthrop was the organizing the Ohio Debate Commission and serves on the commission board. C. E. O. Of theed city club in 2013 after many years as a member, volunteer and moderator. A cleveland transplant, he is also an Award Winning journalist, former High School Teacher and graduate of u. C. Ofkleys graduate school journalism. Mr. Malthrop, i turn the forum over to you . [applause] thank you, ms. Merritt. Thank you so much. Thank you all for joining us today. Conversation about fundamentally a foundational aspect of our democracy, which is why were having this conversation. Ill tell you whos on the panel. Dr. Elizabeth deion with the indiana Debate Commission. A professor for two decades of american politics of in south bendsity and hosts politically speaking wnit, a Public Affairs television program. Also from the world of harry boomer, no stranger to cleveland. Harry is an anchor and reporter with woio, also the anchor of publicocus, a local affairs program. Pastalso the immediate president of clevelands chapter of the National Association of black journalists. Dr. Richard davis is next to him, he teaches Political Science and runs the office of Civic Engagement for brigham in utah. Versity john green rounds out our panel, hes everything political but currently he happens to be the interim president of the university of didnt havee he enough to do running the blitz politics of applied the university of akron. Hes been a pew Research Fellow and goto source for commentary on all things political for nationalrnalists and journalists, as well. Please join me in welcoming our panel. [applause] i want to throw this out for general discussion and hear from all of you on this, given we are in the midst of a political primary, the likes of which the Democratic Party think,seen ever, i dont with somewhere between 20 and 30 candidates who are officially in around 20nd somewhere candidates who get to be in the debates that were watching. Given what these first two rounds of two debates each, 10 debate, and given the debates weve all seen, what debate . Tate of the exciting thing is that people do seem to care about debates. There seems to be appetite for them. We think about the first night debate, over 15 Million People tuned in with online. Nine million the second night, over 18 million. There was a drop off in the second debate but still millions of people tuned in to watch. Thats the good news. Also see that we struggled to know what to do candidates, or 10 candidates on stage. For publiche need information with the ability to canddots on stage multily is difficult and i think the first debate showed us people are frustrated. There was crosschatter and it was hard to hear. The second run, moderators were the rules to enforce to prevent meaningful discussion candidates was interrupted so there seems to be betterto figure out a format. What do these debates tell you about the state of debates . To say that debates do matter. It is the movie version of the book that people dont read. [laughter] and it is our countrys way of saying here are the who want to vie for your vote to represent you in living, breathing democracy with do the air quotes some trepidation, quite honestly. Andi think they give us people watching an opportunity sayse who believes or who what and sometimes what they say and what they believe arent necessarily the same but at gives us their perception of what they want us about who they are and what they believe. It is difficult to get as many the last weve seen in couple of debates a voice. Every voice does matter, as well. Is important for us to find every way we possibly that everybodye who wants to Say Something is people decidethe because it is by the people and ifee can find a comfortable way to do that, an effective way to do that, i think america will be off. R richard davis, comments of dr. Bennion and harry boomer termsto the fact that in of the state of the debates, we dont know the format thats best. Seen so farweve have been widely critiqued for being a mess. Technical term, by the way. What we can see is that of hand andget out when you have 10 or more itsdates on the stage, to sayfficult for anyone something of substance for any length of time. Thats the sort of thing that should give us pause when we talk about debates. We should talk about structuring debates in a way that the need for the candidates, theres also need for the voters. The debates we have seen so far, they have shown debates can take place before an election takes place. Theres a calling process that hasnt happened yet, and it should happen. What we have seen is media organizations have created and organized these debates. Statewide debate condition commissions are really more than just media organizations. Perhaps what we need is an association of state Debate Commissions or some entity to organize primary debates. So that they are done differently. Not done just to increase an audience. Not done just to increase ratings for a particular broadcaster. But they have other purposes as well. They serve the voters and the candidates and the media as well. I am not sure what entity that is no one has stepped forward. I hope that happens and the debates changed way for make that will help everyone. Dan john green what does this tell us about them making a difference . The debates do matter in different ways but the biggest impact of debates for those that watch debates which is sometimes millions of voters and sometimes less is that they have a higher level of information about the candidate and the issues being debated. You have to remember that for a lot of voters, information comes from visual cues as well as spoken cues. There is an element of the theater in these debates which matters to a lot of people and influences opinions. Many voters say their preferred source of information is a debate. But we cannot ignore what comes after the debates. The News Coverage and the narrative that develops. That will affect many more people than those that actually watch the debate. How much do debates matter in terms of Election Outcomes . Somewhat unclear. Just because people get information does not mean they will be persuaded one way or another. In fact, partisans on both sides get different information so it is a draw. But there is some evidence, particularly in races where there is not a strong incumbent, that debates do matter, they matter to percent or three Percentage Points in the process. They can build momentum or stop momentum as we go through the primary process. But also, there is of course the interpretation about how people look or what they may have said or not said which plays into that factor as well. I really do think debates matter , but we have to remember they are not the only factors that influence public opinion. One of the important things is that many people have strong partisan views. The primary debates may be particularly influential compared to general election debates. Johnl in a highly polarized electorate, with close races, it could matter. And the idea that it is not just what candidates say, but how they behave. Many people think nixon sweating on television may have mattered in that race. Also al gore sighing. That may have heard him against george bush. It can matter at the margins but it can also give a candidate more funding or media attention. Debates often times it will give a candidate and opportunity to get their soundbite on tv. They tell you what they want to say, the message they want to get out, so people hear the same message over and over again. It is sort of like political theater where people will do what they feel will get the most bang for their buck because they dont have a lot of time to get deep into the weeds. I dont know if many people would want them to get into the weeds, but they need to find a way to have an immediate impact. And because of that, they may end up truncating their message. It may not be the message they want to tell but given the state of debate and democracy, that may be their only choice. I think it would be important for us to find a way to give those truly dedicated to the proposition of wanting to represent the people, and opportunity to voice their opinions more freely and for a longer period of time so they could get more in depth about what they really mean so we can have a better sense of who they are and what they stand for. We have all seen examples of where a candidate is asked a question about education and they dont answer it but talk about health care. The strategy is for them to get that message out on that. In the context of the debate, it is kind of strange. I have seen that happen too many times. Richard davis, you were one of the cofounders of the utah Debate Commission. I wanted to give you an opportunity to tell a little about that story because in this moment, it seems when we are talking about these nationally televised primary debates, it is an important reminder that they matter at every level. And the statewide debates may have more impact than the national debates. That is very true and that is why we formed at utah Debate Commission. To provide attention to those races that seem to be lost when you are talking about a president ial race. Our Gubernatorial Race happens in a president ial Election Year so it is easy for the president ial campaign to basically wipe away all of the interest in anything else. We felt we had to put that back on center stage. We have a governors race. We have senate races. We have congressional races. All of those are actually more important in the sense that these are the people that directly represent you. I am very glad to see the statewide Debate Commissions happen because what they are doing is putting into the limelight these races that, unfortunately in the nationalization of politics, will get lost. The commissions also change the balance of power between the people and the campaign. The general public does not truly understand, when they see a debate in a place that is not a state that has a Debate Commission, i dont think they truly understand how the debate came to be. Can you pull back the curtain . Candidates that refuse Live Audience debates is is it a is if they debate at all, thats sometimes with only extreme media pressure and public pressure, they will go to individual stations and the incumbent will negotiate the terms of the debate. Or not even negotiate, will specify all of the terms. The underdog in the polls, often the nonincumbent, or if it is open, it is the person trolling who just needs something. They will just stipulate to anything. And what we see is very weak moderators with no followup if they dont answer the question. And little opportunity for a candidate to question one another. And that is where Debate Commissions are key. The commission can post all of those gubernatorial and senate races and they set the standards. They set the rules of the debate. Take it or leave it. In the case of the indiana Debate Commission, everyone has decided they could not leave it because that is the debate that will be carried on all of these commercial networks as well as the public broadcasting systems. If you can get all of the media together to broadcast the debate, you take away the power from one station that wants to cover it to capitulate to whatever the strongest candidate says. The other thing we know from a study by kim from political scientist from the bush kerrey debate is that the spin can matter. People watching the debate on cnn thought kerry had won, and those that watched another station thought bush when they. By having it broadcast on a lot of different broadcasts and on the radio, you get a more generalized sense and you dont have just one commentators controlling the narrative. From the plaintiff of the from the point of view of the political process itself, one of the things that we learned through creating the Ohio Debate Commission was that there was a real service to campaigns in providing this because part of the reason they would stipulate all of those things and comment to tv stations with certain terms is they did not have faith that the debate would be high quality or fair. You are right. You have to realize that a Campaign Looks at a debate differently than voters or journalists. For a campaign, it is an opportunity to persuade people. This begin politics, they may prefer all things being equal rather than something biased in their favor but there is the danger that it could be biased against them. To have an institution with wellestablished roles would make sure the messages get out to a broad population. That is very attractive. That is a whole lot of work they do not have to do. That is why i applaud these Debate Commissions, that the that institutionalizes debates so candidates will immediately think we have to go to the debate, how do we get ready . As opposed to what are the rules and who gets to invent them . In utah, that was my fear, particularly incumbents would say i dont want to be a part of it. They did decide they wanted to be a part of the debate because they perceived it was fair, neutral, outside of a party, he and therefore it would be fair to them to participate in. One of the drawbacks is they began to turn down other debates and some people criticized us for basically monopolizing the debates. We dont want to do that. But it was good they were saying you, however, are an organization we do want to be a part of. Utah is the only one of these four efforts that have state funding. Yes. Congratulations. [laughter] can you talk about that . The big issue was will the state impose some sort of string that and that has not happened. Can it happen in the future . It is possible but then i think we have to reassess. So far they have not placed in strings and i think it is because we do more than just debates. We actually educate. We have an Education Program where we try to integrate the debates into high school curriculum. And universities are involved in our debates. They serve a purpose that the state wants to promote. I have a question for you. You have been involved with the debates but also covered them as a journalist. As a journalist, how do you see the debate process . A work in progress. I am not the mildmannered reporter from the daily planet. As an individual that considers himself fairly well informed and involved, whose tax dollars go to pay the salaries of the representatives, i want to see them talk to me and explain to me who they are and what they believe. I dont want the incumbent to hide behind his or her income been and not speak to the people. I think that is an affront to the democracy. They need to be able to speak to the people. If you cannot persuade me and giving me your possession, you should not be in office. You should not hide behind your title, your office, or your money. The debate is that mechanism that says come and let me hear what you have to say, and if you dont show up, you dont show up. And if you do not show up coming if you dont show up, you should not be voted for in my , humble opinion. We should continue to impress upon candidates from those that are wellknown to those that are less wellknown, that it is important to have your voices heard. I am all about inclusion. And i think debates give people an opportunity to have their voices heard and sometimes, because they do not perform well the theatrics of television or radio, some people win on the radio but lose on tv. That shows the perception that people have based on what they see or hear. It is important for everyone that want to represent the people to be heard. That is where i come down. You just said you were all about inclusion. I have a broader question. It is about when we are talking about statewide offices or congressional offices about third parties. Libertarian or green party candidates. Sometimes, they are depending on access to the debate to give oxygen to their campaign. And sometimes, thirdparty candidates are more serious than others. In our nation, there have been thirdparty candidate that became the governor of minnesota, for example but it does not happen often. How do you feel about Ohio Debate Commission<\/a> since its inception last year with many stations around the state airing the gubernatorial and u. S. Senate debates organized by the fall. Sion last political debate has been an integral part of the american all levelsrocess at and yet over the last decade debates between candidates seeking Political Office<\/a> has declined. Effort,not for lack of as community and civic groups, including the city club, as well stations and other media organizations, have debates only to have candidates, often incumbents, refusing invitations, to debate opponents or desiring debates. Oreographed in 2006, the city club famously uninvited two gubernatorial candidates after their refusal to participate in an unscripted debate. Debates hasver gained momentum. Proliferation of social media, and other online platforms, has given candidates withtunities to connect audiences in ways debates used to provide. To debates, there is often no agreedupon sense of, no shared best practices and no clear idea to lookat debates ought like or accomplish. All things weve seen in the debates among Democratic Candidates<\/a> for the president of the united states. To preserve political debates as part of the democratic process, several have created Debate Commission<\/a>s with the goal to convene highquality debates substantive role in informing citizens about issues ballot. Idates on the in 2018, the ohio debate joiningon was formed, indiana, utah, and washington as states with this type of statewide collaboration. How are they working . And what should the future of look like . We have assembled a panel of to discussperts these questions and guiding todays conversation is city malthrop. Dan mr. Malthrop was the organizing the Ohio Debate Commission<\/a> and serves on the commission board. C. E. O. Of theed city club in 2013 after many years as a member, volunteer and moderator. A cleveland transplant, he is also an Award Winning<\/a> journalist, former High School Teacher<\/a> and graduate of u. C. Ofkleys graduate school journalism. Mr. Malthrop, i turn the forum over to you . [applause] thank you, ms. Merritt. Thank you so much. Thank you all for joining us today. Conversation about fundamentally a foundational aspect of our democracy, which is why were having this conversation. Ill tell you whos on the panel. Dr. Elizabeth deion with the indiana Debate Commission<\/a>. A professor for two decades of american politics of in south bendsity and hosts politically speaking wnit, a Public Affairs<\/a> television program. Also from the world of harry boomer, no stranger to cleveland. Harry is an anchor and reporter with woio, also the anchor of publicocus, a local affairs program. Pastalso the immediate president of clevelands chapter of the National Association<\/a> of black journalists. Dr. Richard davis is next to him, he teaches Political Science<\/a> and runs the office of Civic Engagement<\/a> for brigham in utah. Versity john green rounds out our panel, hes everything political but currently he happens to be the interim president of the university of didnt havee he enough to do running the blitz politics of applied the university of akron. Hes been a pew Research Fellow<\/a> and goto source for commentary on all things political for nationalrnalists and journalists, as well. Please join me in welcoming our panel. [applause] i want to throw this out for general discussion and hear from all of you on this, given we are in the midst of a political primary, the likes of which the Democratic Party<\/a> think,seen ever, i dont with somewhere between 20 and 30 candidates who are officially in around 20nd somewhere candidates who get to be in the debates that were watching. Given what these first two rounds of two debates each, 10 debate, and given the debates weve all seen, what debate . Tate of the exciting thing is that people do seem to care about debates. There seems to be appetite for them. We think about the first night debate, over 15 Million People<\/a> tuned in with online. Nine million the second night, over 18 million. There was a drop off in the second debate but still millions of people tuned in to watch. Thats the good news. Also see that we struggled to know what to do candidates, or 10 candidates on stage. For publiche need information with the ability to canddots on stage multily is difficult and i think the first debate showed us people are frustrated. There was crosschatter and it was hard to hear. The second run, moderators were the rules to enforce to prevent meaningful discussion candidates was interrupted so there seems to be betterto figure out a format. What do these debates tell you about the state of debates . To say that debates do matter. It is the movie version of the book that people dont read. [laughter] and it is our countrys way of saying here are the who want to vie for your vote to represent you in living, breathing democracy with do the air quotes some trepidation, quite honestly. Andi think they give us people watching an opportunity sayse who believes or who what and sometimes what they say and what they believe arent necessarily the same but at gives us their perception of what they want us about who they are and what they believe. It is difficult to get as many the last weve seen in couple of debates a voice. Every voice does matter, as well. Is important for us to find every way we possibly that everybodye who wants to Say Something<\/a> is people decidethe because it is by the people and ifee can find a comfortable way to do that, an effective way to do that, i think america will be off. R richard davis, comments of dr. Bennion and harry boomer termsto the fact that in of the state of the debates, we dont know the format thats best. Seen so farweve have been widely critiqued for being a mess. Technical term, by the way. What we can see is that of hand andget out when you have 10 or more itsdates on the stage, to sayfficult for anyone something of substance for any length of time. Thats the sort of thing that should give us pause when we talk about debates. We should talk about structuring debates in a way that the need for the candidates, theres also need for the voters. The debates we have seen so far, they have shown debates can take place before an election takes place. Theres a calling process that hasnt happened yet, and it should happen. What we have seen is media organizations have created and organized these debates. Statewide debate condition commissions are really more than just media organizations. Perhaps what we need is an association of state Debate Commission<\/a>s or some entity to organize primary debates. So that they are done differently. Not done just to increase an audience. Not done just to increase ratings for a particular broadcaster. But they have other purposes as well. They serve the voters and the candidates and the media as well. I am not sure what entity that is no one has stepped forward. I hope that happens and the debates changed way for make that will help everyone. Dan john green what does this tell us about them making a difference . The debates do matter in different ways but the biggest impact of debates for those that watch debates which is sometimes millions of voters and sometimes less is that they have a higher level of information about the candidate and the issues being debated. You have to remember that for a lot of voters, information comes from visual cues as well as spoken cues. There is an element of the theater in these debates which matters to a lot of people and influences opinions. Many voters say their preferred source of information is a debate. But we cannot ignore what comes after the debates. The News Coverage<\/a> and the narrative that develops. That will affect many more people than those that actually watch the debate. How much do debates matter in terms of Election Outcomes<\/a> . Somewhat unclear. Just because people get information does not mean they will be persuaded one way or another. In fact, partisans on both sides get different information so it is a draw. But there is some evidence, particularly in races where there is not a strong incumbent, that debates do matter, they matter to percent or three Percentage Points<\/a> in the process. They can build momentum or stop momentum as we go through the primary process. But also, there is of course the interpretation about how people look or what they may have said or not said which plays into that factor as well. I really do think debates matter , but we have to remember they are not the only factors that influence public opinion. One of the important things is that many people have strong partisan views. The primary debates may be particularly influential compared to general election debates. Johnl in a highly polarized electorate, with close races, it could matter. And the idea that it is not just what candidates say, but how they behave. Many people think nixon sweating on television may have mattered in that race. Also al gore sighing. That may have heard him against george bush. It can matter at the margins but it can also give a candidate more funding or media attention. Debates often times it will give a candidate and opportunity to get their soundbite on tv. They tell you what they want to say, the message they want to get out, so people hear the same message over and over again. It is sort of like political theater where people will do what they feel will get the most bang for their buck because they dont have a lot of time to get deep into the weeds. I dont know if many people would want them to get into the weeds, but they need to find a way to have an immediate impact. And because of that, they may end up truncating their message. It may not be the message they want to tell but given the state of debate and democracy, that may be their only choice. I think it would be important for us to find a way to give those truly dedicated to the proposition of wanting to represent the people, and opportunity to voice their opinions more freely and for a longer period of time so they could get more in depth about what they really mean so we can have a better sense of who they are and what they stand for. We have all seen examples of where a candidate is asked a question about education and they dont answer it but talk about health care. The strategy is for them to get that message out on that. In the context of the debate, it is kind of strange. I have seen that happen too many times. Richard davis, you were one of the cofounders of the utah Debate Commission<\/a>. I wanted to give you an opportunity to tell a little about that story because in this moment, it seems when we are talking about these nationally televised primary debates, it is an important reminder that they matter at every level. And the statewide debates may have more impact than the national debates. That is very true and that is why we formed at utah Debate Commission<\/a>. To provide attention to those races that seem to be lost when you are talking about a president ial race. Our Gubernatorial Race<\/a> happens in a president ial Election Year<\/a> so it is easy for the president ial campaign to basically wipe away all of the interest in anything else. We felt we had to put that back on center stage. We have a governors race. We have senate races. We have congressional races. All of those are actually more important in the sense that these are the people that directly represent you. I am very glad to see the statewide Debate Commission<\/a>s happen because what they are doing is putting into the limelight these races that, unfortunately in the nationalization of politics, will get lost. The commissions also change the balance of power between the people and the campaign. The general public does not truly understand, when they see a debate in a place that is not a state that has a Debate Commission<\/a>, i dont think they truly understand how the debate came to be. Can you pull back the curtain . Candidates that refuse Live Audience<\/a> debates is is it a is if they debate at all, thats sometimes with only extreme media pressure and public pressure, they will go to individual stations and the incumbent will negotiate the terms of the debate. Or not even negotiate, will specify all of the terms. The underdog in the polls, often the nonincumbent, or if it is open, it is the person trolling who just needs something. They will just stipulate to anything. And what we see is very weak moderators with no followup if they dont answer the question. And little opportunity for a candidate to question one another. And that is where Debate Commission<\/a>s are key. The commission can post all of those gubernatorial and senate races and they set the standards. They set the rules of the debate. Take it or leave it. In the case of the indiana Debate Commission<\/a>, everyone has decided they could not leave it because that is the debate that will be carried on all of these commercial networks as well as the public broadcasting systems. If you can get all of the media together to broadcast the debate, you take away the power from one station that wants to cover it to capitulate to whatever the strongest candidate says. The other thing we know from a study by kim from political scientist from the bush kerrey debate is that the spin can matter. People watching the debate on cnn thought kerry had won, and those that watched another station thought bush when they. By having it broadcast on a lot of different broadcasts and on the radio, you get a more generalized sense and you dont have just one commentators controlling the narrative. From the plaintiff of the from the point of view of the political process itself, one of the things that we learned through creating the Ohio Debate Commission<\/a> was that there was a real service to campaigns in providing this because part of the reason they would stipulate all of those things and comment to tv stations with certain terms is they did not have faith that the debate would be high quality or fair. You are right. You have to realize that a Campaign Looks<\/a> at a debate differently than voters or journalists. For a campaign, it is an opportunity to persuade people. This begin politics, they may prefer all things being equal rather than something biased in their favor but there is the danger that it could be biased against them. To have an institution with wellestablished roles would make sure the messages get out to a broad population. That is very attractive. That is a whole lot of work they do not have to do. That is why i applaud these Debate Commission<\/a>s, that the that institutionalizes debates so candidates will immediately think we have to go to the debate, how do we get ready . As opposed to what are the rules and who gets to invent them . In utah, that was my fear, particularly incumbents would say i dont want to be a part of it. They did decide they wanted to be a part of the debate because they perceived it was fair, neutral, outside of a party, he and therefore it would be fair to them to participate in. One of the drawbacks is they began to turn down other debates and some people criticized us for basically monopolizing the debates. We dont want to do that. But it was good they were saying you, however, are an organization we do want to be a part of. Utah is the only one of these four efforts that have state funding. Yes. Congratulations. [laughter] can you talk about that . The big issue was will the state impose some sort of string that and that has not happened. Can it happen in the future . It is possible but then i think we have to reassess. So far they have not placed in strings and i think it is because we do more than just debates. We actually educate. We have an Education Program<\/a> where we try to integrate the debates into high school curriculum. And universities are involved in our debates. They serve a purpose that the state wants to promote. I have a question for you. You have been involved with the debates but also covered them as a journalist. As a journalist, how do you see the debate process . A work in progress. I am not the mildmannered reporter from the daily planet. As an individual that considers himself fairly well informed and involved, whose tax dollars go to pay the salaries of the representatives, i want to see them talk to me and explain to me who they are and what they believe. I dont want the incumbent to hide behind his or her income been and not speak to the people. I think that is an affront to the democracy. They need to be able to speak to the people. If you cannot persuade me and giving me your possession, you should not be in office. You should not hide behind your title, your office, or your money. The debate is that mechanism that says come and let me hear what you have to say, and if you dont show up, you dont show up. And if you do not show up coming if you dont show up, you should not be voted for in my , humble opinion. We should continue to impress upon candidates from those that are wellknown to those that are less wellknown, that it is important to have your voices heard. I am all about inclusion. And i think debates give people an opportunity to have their voices heard and sometimes, because they do not perform well the theatrics of television or radio, some people win on the radio but lose on tv. That shows the perception that people have based on what they see or hear. It is important for everyone that want to represent the people to be heard. That is where i come down. You just said you were all about inclusion. I have a broader question. It is about when we are talking about statewide offices or congressional offices about third parties. Libertarian or green party candidates. Sometimes, they are depending on access to the debate to give oxygen to their campaign. And sometimes, thirdparty candidates are more serious than others. In our nation, there have been thirdparty candidate that became the governor of minnesota, for example but it does not happen often. How do you feel about Third Party Candidates<\/a> . I think the twoparty system is not a very representative system. I think the voices shall be heard and let the people decide who they want to believe and who they want to follow. The thirdparty candidates may not often have the money or the name recognition but that should not preclude them from at least having their voice heard or their faces seen and messages considered. In a democracy, in america, the idea of democracy is that everyone counts. Everyone matters. And if we do not have that happening, america is diminished, ohio is diminished , i as an individual am diminished. Everybodys voice should be heard as much as possible and let the people decide. That is a very good question because we dealt with that in utah. How you thread the needle between a candidate who just wants to use it you are debate as his or her campaign. And those that are serious. We have done that by setting a threshold. A threshold that is not so large that it would cut out a candidate who has the potential to already has some basis for support and to go further but does cut out the candidate that is not a serious candidate. As a result, we have had two thirdparty candidates who have participated in our debates. And it has come to some success. We have been able to get this candidates the opportunity to speak but at the same time, you have to have some basis of support. For us, it is 6 . Some base of support in order to be able to build from that. Criticism the dnc has gotten regarding the debates this year and in the media, one thing that they are perhaps doing right is starting the thresholds at very small and increasing as they go on. Not making it about the money, but the number of donors, the amount of public support, so you can win a large field over time to give people an opportunity to be heard. In indiana, we have a threshold where you need to earn 2 of the secretary of states vote. People vote for your candidate and then you get on the ballot. We almost always have a libertarian candidate in addition to a democrat and republican because they have qualified for ballot access. A fine line. We have had primary debates at the lower level where you may have six or seven people that put their name in for u. S. Congress and sign their name on a piece of paper and dont have a facebook page, website, some organizations i work with have decided they want to put in just at least an asterisk that they reserve the right to determine whether you are an active candidate. D have any campaignfinance filing . Evidence of an active campaign . To get around being the only thing that is creating a campaign. Having so many candidates on stage that the three or four who are seriously running, you cannot hear what they stand for or compare them in a meaningful way. Free speech. Because of that, we can oftentimes get the worst democracy money can buy. I think it is important that we have some measure, some metric where we can get people involved in the process. Small donors, when dollar, 20. To know that there is someone out there who believes what you believe, who supports what you believe, at least it is enough to get you heard a few times. If you fall off as your message isnt strong enough, thats the way the world works. At least in my solution, should work. I believe that is important, that democracy. When we have people talking to each other and not at each other. It is important to find a way to include as many voices as possible. I know i sound like a broken record. You sound like a patriot. I am serious. I appreciate that. Speaking of being inclusive, we will start including questions from the general public, who have joined us. ,ust to remind our audience terry blumer is anchor and reporter for channel 19 news. He is also the immediate past president of the cleveland chapter of the National Association<\/a> of black journalists. With us is well is dr. Richard davis. Professor of Political Science<\/a> and director of the office of Civic Engagement<\/a> at Brigham Young<\/a> university. Dr. Elizabeth thing and, project director for the american democracy project at university of indiana south bend. And, dr. John green, interim president of the center for applied politics. Now we will begin the q and a. We welcome questions from everyone. Those of you joining us through our livestream. If you want to tweak a question, tweet it at the city club. Today isur microphone the interim. Dr. Davis mentioned the phenomenon of debates starting as early as they started. In the a lot of debates Democratic Party<\/a> schedule this year. If you years ago, we had a lot of debates in the party. I dont know if this is real or something i perceive, that the presence of a lot of debates gave republican candidates several years ago opportunities to repeat and strengthen talking points against the other side. They seemed to use that pretty effectively so that everybody knew what they were saying about the candidates from the other side. They seemed to do less attacking each other. I wondered if thats what i see, or the product of my own political background, or if thats whats happening, or if it can be a strength democrats choose to start doing. I would say it is common in a primary setting for candidates to attack one another because they are competing for the same base, not the other base not the general election base. Thats why i think were seeing the democrats doing what they are doing. We talked about cannibalism going on. Attacking barack obama as the most popular president recently, but what they are doing is trying to carve out a base of support within their particular primary electorate. To do that, you have to elbow out somebody doing that, trying to appeal to the same base. At the same time, both parties, and we saw this last time, have to show they are the best at attacking the other partys nominee. In this case, it is going to be donald trump. Four years ago, we pretty much a knew it was going to be hillary clinton. We have to prove they will be the most effective at that. A lot of that is the first goal, which is to take out those that are closest ideologically so they can gain their supporters. There certainly the case. We saw with the republicans in 2016, we see it for the democrats. Certain common themes emerge. To the extent that those themes are seen as effective, that helps prepare the eventual nominee to have some good arguments in the fall. Good afternoon. This is a very important topic. I have a question about the role of the commission. Are you responsible for marketing the debates and making sure marginalized groups who usually dont get much attention paid to them know about the debates . I think those africanamericans, hispanics, i dont know if you have a budget. I dont know how that works. Im really wondering if one of your responsibilities is to make sure our democracy truly works, and as many people as possible find out when the debates will be happening . Absolutely. One of the things that we do with the indiana Debate Commission<\/a> is we have them all i think we all do this, we have voters submit questions online. We have a questionnaire about the voters. One of the things we added was optional, to put race or ethnicitys in our live debates, people asking questions. Indiana is not one of the most diverse states in the nation, but it is more diverse than it sometimes looks like. We made a cant just decision to reach out to organizations that tended to serve the historically black organizations and encourage them. I think we should do more of that, make sure we do represent the state as a whole, and not certain segments of the state. It is better for democracy. That is something that we want to do more and more. As i said earlier, we attempted to make sure information about the debates gets out to all schools. So in all areas of the states. Also in terms of questions, we look at those questions and try and make sure we have a diversity of perspectives, do points, and issues. Thats the question each candidate is going to have to face. Theres another piece to that question that you asked that has to do with how the Debate Commission<\/a>s are funded. The case of the Ohio Debate Commission<\/a> is they were funded through grants from philanthropic organizations. It never would have happened without massive contributions from the partner organizations, the media organizations partnered to the commission. The same is true in indiana and utah. Theres a heavy dependence on the involvement of partners to bear some of the costs of putting on debates and marketing the debates. Thats the diversity that we celebrate. You have a lot of partners at the table. You are much more likely to have a fair and open process than to rely on one organization. One of the things i like to see is having people at the table at the beginning and not just sending out a campaign to just say you come. Theres times in the news when we have to decide what kind of stories to cover and from what perspective. It is important someone that looks like me, looks like her, and the diversity of america is sitting at the table. That has been something we have been conscious of when it comes to our board of directors. You do want people as much as to have that diversity. Its about inclusion and having their voice at the table to be included. Putting together these debates and deciding what questions are selected and how the debate will run. I have a question about congressional races where there is an incumbent and opponent. And there is an invitation extended and the income it is not in their interest to debate, do you feel the forum or a place like this city club might go ahead and have the debate with the opponent who wants the opportunity to debate and announces at the beginning that the next invitation was extended and they chose not to participate . We havent had that issue with the Debate Commission<\/a>. I also work with of the league of women voters in the project to host congressional debates and state legislative debates, and the mayoral school board prosecutor. All of the debates on the ballot. We do have one congressional incumbent who does not want to participate in any Live Audience<\/a> debate. If we have a libertarian, we go ahead with the broadcast debate, whether Live Audience<\/a> or studio, with 2 candidates. Theres a beginning, middle, and end. All three candidates were invited. We have not had an empty chair debate. If somebody cancels, we may do it as a discussion with candidates. It can get dicey. We have not had that situation. We had one candidate race attorney general in the states. It does raise questions about whether media organizations would participate or not if that happened. Our rule is that we go ahead. We can go ahead, and media organizations can decide whether they want to based on interests and a single candidate discussion or legal problems. I concur with his point of view. You go ahead and move ahead. I dont think any single candidate should determine what i see and hear. If you dont want to be there, thats on you. We invited you, you chose not to come. If you chose not to come, you should let the public make its decision as to whether or not they matter. When you dont show up, you are saying you dont matter. I will not be able to speak you in an open forum, Live Audience<\/a>, if you dont think im important enough to show up. I will make a decision about you as my representative in the state house or the u. S. Congress. Its important that we hold with elected officials accountable. Those who dont show, i think they are cowards. If you dont show up to be heard representing the people, you are a coward. Show up. [applause] a piece of what is driving the decision incumbents make is the gerrymandered history that districts that are so safe for many ohio representatives. Theres very little incentive to debate at all. Do you foresee those dynamics shifting with the next census, where we are likely to lose a seat in ohio, but the districts will be redrawn under a new process . In ohio, the new process is an experiment. I think we will have more competitiveness as a result. I hope so. Theres something really important that the dates are only part of a broader political process. The availability of Media Coverage<\/a> is part of it. Campaign finance is part of it. All of these things interact in a complicated way. In the end, a candidate in one part of the district faces a different set of incentives than someone who is competitive. That goes back to one of the points made earlier, which is democracy ultimately thrives on competition. That means we have to have a lot of candidates, a lot of people talking to each other to make it work. You opened up a very interesting point. Maybe we should take the state debates out of the time of the nationals. The way to do that would be to coordinate the major channels to take different states at the same time on the same night. Ohio would listen to ohio, indiana would listen to indiana. Put the governor down below and not makes them up on a national level. My real question is how can we in the audience participate by giving ideas that we want debated . Right now, we got three big ideas that they think of as hot buttons. There are people that would like to know what to do about opiates, or slave children. They dont care so much about green new deal. How do you get to people that are posing the question to open up . You would have to warn the debaters, because it would not be fair to pop it off of the top of their heads. We have a process where we invite the public to ask questions, to propose questions. What we will do, take a look at those issues and make sure we have the diversity of issues being represented. We dont want the debate to be primarily about a particular issue. It means we will begin with a halfdozen different topics in the course of one hour. That means the public has a role in that process. They are determining what questions we are asking. Then we dont just use the question in a generic way, we will typically go back to the person and say you must the question, you come to our studio, you do it. You go to the university. You ask the question. You actually face the candidate and ask the question. So the public knows it isnt some group of elites making the decision about what issues will be discussed, it is the public making the decision. Theres some Exciting New Technology<\/a> that may help with this. We do the same as utah, but open debate with the coalition. Theres a lot of new technology where voters can not only pose questions, but also raise them and vote on them. They find many more people will vote on questions that actually pose a question. Using some of these technologies will be an exciting new way to get more people involved. Another thing we have talked about is extending the period of debate for the livestream so as the questions come on through social media and twitter, you do an extra half an hour centered on these budgets that came in as people were listening to the candidates, giving voters an opportunity to follow up with candidates. Theres other exciting ideas, giving more candidates control, instead of media moderators and allowing them to cross examine one another with a test like clock that age get the same time and decide to use it so they dont have to waste time droning on about something they dont care about. They can focus in and give more details on things they know most about and care most about. There are new exciting formats the commissions are discussing in the next two days. It is really for indiana. Its about putting voters first. Were always thinking about new and better ways to do that. Whats interesting to me, the voters matter. It is important, because how many of you know where america ranks when it comes to the percentage of voting in the world . 122nd. Thats pitiful. My mom used to say thats pitiful. Debates give people an opportunity to hear the message, to say i want to be involved. Debates are important because they give people a voice. They give me an opportunity to hear what you believe, what you are saying, hopefully what you believe. Its important we continue having as many debates as we can, to hear is many voices, so we can raise that very poor Voter Participation<\/a> in this country. So we are not continuously exploiting our branded democracy to the rest of the world and not practicing it here in america. It is key we get involved and stay involved. Let me point to what you said. In utah, we have a geographically large state. Each region has its own interests. By having debates in different parts of the state, including regional issues, we tell people it is not just about state issues or national issues, its about whats going on in your region. We are attempting to represent a particular region of our state, which is not going to happen at the president ial level. It doesnt happen at the state level. We want people to feel like particular interests in their particular area are represented by our Debate Commission<\/a>er. As the youngest person in this room, im 19, i go to college. I would like to ask how new voters and young adult voters not just generally can get interested in politics, but how can they help specifically with debates and making sure Younger Voters<\/a> can have their voices heard during debates . Maybe you can talk about through social media. Im part of a generation that has really been built up and grown up on social media and new age of the internet. If you can talk about that. One of the things is if you want me to be involved, you have to talk to me. Address issues important to me. You have to use the media i use. Im learning after having gone to the National Association<\/a>, of journalists for 4 days, this reaches you a lot more than it does a lot of other people. We have to reach you where you are, we have to talk to your issues. You need a seat at the table at the beginning so it is not we need to involve them. They are already involved from the beginning. Thats the key. We have to speak your language. We had to address your issues. Can you speak to the efforts of the Utah Commission<\/a> with College Students<\/a> . We make sure our debates are not only on television, which is a medium for the people of a certain age, but also, they are live streamed so all ages will feel like they can be part of this. Thank you for being here and participating in this. We also make sure that we live tweet the debates and encourage others to do the same. A we integrated social media into our debates very early on in order to be able to do this great thing. We talk about how to reach out to young people. I was talking to my son a couple of days ago about this session, debates. He said you have to make them interesting to me to participate. How can we do that . This is a work in progress for us. How can we make sure that we make these debates interesting to young people, not just those of us who are over a certain age over the hill, is what i should say. It was to make sure candidates have time, apart from the debate. After the debate takes place, theres a meeting with the students. We have a meeting with students. They can interact directly and off the record with candidates. I have spoken with them. They talk about the sessions. It is very enlightening. Sometimes, the candidates are for more engaging, far more open about themselves. Sometimes kids say they were going to vote for them, but they will. Others on a personal level, it is not someone. There are only 4 statewide debate collaborations. Wherever you are in school, it is really hard for candidates to say no to a student group. Candidates and politicians love to say yes to students, because they understand they are winning a voter for decades to come. I would say get actively involved in whatever group on your campus is doing that work. If there isnt a group on campus able to do that work, created group on campus able to do that work. The things done on my campus is to hold a launch party. Not only do those for the president ial races, but also the Debate Commission<\/a>, the senate races. If you provide pizza, snacks, they will come. A political party. Another question . Just to tail coat on what the man brought up. I know no other group that wants to participate more in our democracy than foreignborn people who have come here. Have there been any efforts made to make the debates more accessible to those who are still struggling with the english language . That is a very good question. We do not currently have captioning in other languages available with our debates. I think that would be an interesting opportunity for a partnership. We have not done very much on that. I think that is great to do. Im reminded of the fact that when carl rose spoke here a couple of years ago, William Mckinleys<\/a> Campaign Literature<\/a> was published in 27 different languages. Different kind of gop. Substantively, that issue of immigration comes up in the debates. It is important we tackle that. In terms of language accessibility in a political primary moment, where second languages are being used during the debates themselves. There was as a onetime college debater, i have trouble turning the debate to what we saw republican senator in 2016 and the democrats. Would be more useful to the public and candidates that the candidates were allowed more unfettered time to speak and reduce the role of the moderators to be mostly timekeeping . Thats a great question. What we need to do is make sure we realize the candidates do have a purpose. We should allow them, when the purpose coincides with the purpose of voters, to be able to use that time to say what they want to say. At the same time, we tried to have moderators who have license to be able to say to a candidate you didnt answer that question, so i will ask it again, or i will ask it in a different way. Thats important to do. Otherwise, you get speeches that go from there. And the voters are probably harmed. Even though the candidate may feel they did what they needed to do. We think both of those constituencies are important. The candidate sometimes needs to be reminded that it is for the voters to learn information. And the voters do have to listen to the candidates to say what they think is important. A little bit more time for candidates to speak, but will dont want a freeforall to dominate the debates. So you need something to keep the candidates on task. I think a wellinformed, wellversed moderator im prejudice, because im a moderator and i have done this, so i have to go on the side of adequate time for everyone. By the moderators give the steering the guides the vehicle. To the point, in classical debates, there are a set of rules everybody knows. One of those things the Debate Commission<\/a>s done is established this set of rules in a different format. I think it will be interesting to see what happens, in terms of playing with additional formats. As a moderator, i enjoy when i can vote and followup when they havent answered a question, but have the license to extend time. If it seems they have just gotten good and none of them have been able to finish their thought and really have that conversation. I also know that the Annenberg Center<\/a> has the trading ideas. Has the created ideas, like the time clock. They give everybody the same time. They would determine how much time they would spend on a particular answer knowing they might not have as much time at the end. If you have someone like joe biden being a front runner, and he is attacked, everyone will give them exactly the same time. They also have another idea to keep the same basic format with the 60 or 90 second responses and 30 second rebuttals, but give people an opportunity to say twice in the debate they can suspend the rules and have 90 seconds to really respond to other people who have challenged them or talk more about something that isnt covered that was really important to them. People have suggested a variety of ideas, even having candidates challenge each other and the moderators take a backseat. We dont see that very often. It is something that would be interesting to experiment with. Perhaps the lowerlevel dates perhaps the lowerlevel debates first, then work our way up. Dr. Elizabeth banging, professor of Political Science<\/a> and the american democracy project director, also host of politically speaking. With us on the panel, harry boomer, reporter for channel 19 news, a media pass president , member of the Cleveland Association<\/a> of black journalists. Richard davis, professor of Political Science<\/a> and director of the office of Civic Engagement<\/a> at Brigham Young<\/a> university. And john green, interim president of university of akron and director of the institute of applied politics. Im dan multum. This is been a form about the state of and future of political debates, more or less doing our part to create a more perfect union. Our partners, the league of women voters of Greater Cleveland<\/a> and the Ohio Debate Commission<\/a>. We welcome guests at the table hosted by a local community college. Some of those guests are newly of voting age, as well. We are happy to have all of you here. That brings us to the end of our forum. Thank you panelists, members and friends of the city club. Will you do me a favor and ring the gong as i say the following words . This forum is now adjourned. That was so gentle. [laughter] [applause] 2020 democratic president ial candidate senator Amy Klobuchar<\/a> attends a house party in nashua, new hampshire. Watch live coverage sunday at 1 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Campaign 2020. Watch our live coverage of the president ial candidates on the yourign trail, and make up own mind. Cspans campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. Democratic president ial candidate former Vice President<\/a> joe biden gave a Campaign Speech<\/a> and met with voters in keene, new hampshire. This is about 1. 5 hours","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia601005.us.archive.org\/11\/items\/CSPAN_20190825_035100_Future_of_Campaign_Debates_at_City_Club_of_Cleveland\/CSPAN_20190825_035100_Future_of_Campaign_Debates_at_City_Club_of_Cleveland.thumbs\/CSPAN_20190825_035100_Future_of_Campaign_Debates_at_City_Club_of_Cleveland_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}