The world. As you may have seen in your own country, or as the slide show indicates, theres a Global Movement toward candidate debates making candidate debates a part of elections in a diverse range of countries. Its at least 65 countries so far. And i suspect the number is higher. Why are more countries organizing debates . I think there are several reasons. Debates provide a unique opportunity to compare candidates. They are generally the only time in a campaign when voters see and hear directly from the candidates, appearing side by side, in the same forum, at the same time. Debates also increase focus on policies in a campaign. In some countries, candidates traditionally campaign on personal attacks or slogans, personality, religion or ethnic loyalties. In contrast to our debate, forces candidates to have more indepth positions on the issues. For example, in jamaica, polling after a 2011 debate showed that 70 of the public was more informed on candidate policy positions because of the debates, and 30 actually said they changed their vote as a result of the debates. In the u. S. , after the 2012 debates, some 60 of voters said the debates were more helpful than the Campaign Commercials in deciding whom to vote for. I think weve also seen the debates lower political tensions and promote tolerance in countries coming out of civil war, where elections can be a flash point for violence. Debates can reduce tensions and show that even bitter political rivals can express their opinions respectfully and shake hands on national television, which sends a message of National Unit to the whole country. For this reason, many countries coming out of conflicts such as afghanistan, iraq, liberia, and sierra leone, have held debates. For example as well, in debates in ghana, ma louie and kenya, the candidates publicly agreed during the debates to accept Election Results or go to the courts rather than the streets with their complaints. Debates also help citizens hold elected officials accountable. Once in office, the specific positions taken by candidates during debates are on the record. The public and the media can hold them to their promises. Debates also promote a positive international image. Theyre highprofile events covered by national media. I recall the debates in peru picked up an additional 25 million viewers, because cnn espanol covered the event. And from a broad debate, theyre seen as signs of a growing or healthy democracy. Debates can project positive image internationally that can hopefully promote tourism. And the neighbors likewise ask, if leaders there can debate, why cant we do the same here. Im reminded of an editorial that appeared in zimbabwe by citing debates in nigeria, and the u. S. Jamaican debates also led to inquiries from groups following to seeking suit in tobago. At the same time the benefits of debates for candidates is many. Debates provide the chance to speak directly to the electorate unfiltered by the media. The candidates can reach more voters in the debate than going town to town, shaking hands. The nigerian debates in 2011, ive heard estimates they were viewed by 50 million people. So thats coverage that you cant buy. Candidates can also connect with independent or undecided voters who are less likely to watch or attend a campaign rally, than the party faithful. Debates also level the Playing Field where one party dominates the media. And they allow parties to showcase emerging leaders such as women, youth, and revitalize the image of the party and show inclusive ness but despite the benefits, holding debates can be hard, and many fail for political or production reasons. Universal challenge is to get candidates to commit to debating, especially incumbents. As i mentioned in the u. S. We had that problem with the 16year gap. On the production front, the tv production front, another example was in 1976, the audio went out at the u. S. Ford carter debates. The candidates stood silent on the stage for 27 minutes on national television. Which as you can imagine was very uncomfortable. And to increase success rates, we found the debate groups can benefit from pooling their lessons and expertise, and in that respect, i would close by noting debate resources that are available for those who are interests, including the website of the commission on president ial debates, debates. Org, and debatesinternational. Org that has debates from around the world, including the Debates International network which is an 18country association of debate organizers. Thank you. [ applause ] thank you, matt. We will follow that by diana, and then open it up for questions. Good afternoon and thank you to afis for participating in this forum. As peter mentioned, i do a lot of research and writing about debates. Ive also been on several ifis projects, including in georgia. Did some work in afghanistan recently. And did an ndi project many years ago in benin and some work with another ngo in south america. So i also have had this international experience. But as a professor, the research is the thing that has been of most interest to me. And ive had an opportunity to compare some of what viewers how they respond to debates in the United States, and whether that is similar in other countries. So what i want to do is talk about basically what makes a fair debate. And well start there. Kind of the purposes for debate, which i think matt outlined very well, it is a sidebyside candidate comparison, and its usually the only time youll have that throughout a campaign. Many years ago, after the Kennedy Nixon debate, a media researcher in the United States noted that there are usually three agendas going on at a debate. The candidates debate because they have something they want to say. And its usually not what the questioners want them to talk about, which is why they dont often answer the question they were asked, or they talk about something other than the question once theyve answered it. The media obviously have an agenda, and theyre creating the questions in most of these situations. And then the public has an agenda. There are certain things the public want to hear. As matt referenced, the debates focus on issues. And after you have heard hours and hours of negative advertising, or very short clips on newscasts, its really important to have some extended time devoted to it and they want to hear about the issues that are important. And whats happened with technology is we now have far more opportunities for the public to have input into the questions that the media are actually asking. Whether thats through the polling data, or through the use of questions that the public sends, oftentimes realtime, as well talk about in a minute. So all of those agendas, everyone gets to have a piece of this debate, and its one of the few times you have that in a campaign. Obviously theres more depth. And they do reveal leadership traits. Some of the research that ive done over the years in conjunction originally with the commission on president ial debates was to establish a program called debate watch, where we encouraged people to invite friends into their homes, or to open up schools, or community centers, watch together, and then talk. And if you go to the commissions website, youll see debate watch, and the kinds of questions that we ask people to discuss. I had hundreds of these groups that we had transcripts of. And what we found was that the debates collectively, as they watch over the 90 minutes, or hour or two hours, begin to see what kind of a leader this person will be. They see how they think on their feet. They see what happens when theyre attacked. They are given difficult questions to ask. And so both their verbal and their nonverbal communication tells something about what kind of leader they would be. To give you an example, in 2000, when president gore or Vice President gore debated then governor bush, at the first debate, one of the agreements was that they thought was that the camera would only show the person speaking. But they were doing split screens, where you were seeing the person who wasnt. And the Vice President was sighing, rolling his eyes, reacting to things that governor bush was saying. When i went into focus groups afterwards, people were saying, he was rude. And he was doing it on stage with television cameras. What if he brings the world leader in, and hes rude to him. And so people interpreted this behavior as some indication of how he might govern. So they were saying, we found out something about his personality. It was very interesting. And i looked at the transcripts from across the country, and we had similar kinds of reactions. So they do provide that type of leadership trait. And then as matt also mentioned, they synthesize issues. As ive said, if someone were asleep, and woke up the night of the debate, they would know basically everything that they had been talking about in the campaign up to that point. Because all of the major issues come into play. When i go into negotiated debate, or help plan a debate in the United States, or in another country, i always start by saying, what makes for a fair debate. One is you have clearly stated rules. In the United States, the agreements are now 20some pages long. And they talk about things such as the height of the podium, or whether or not the audience can react, or who will be in the audience or what kind of shots you can have on the camera. So its very important that the rules are developed by the sponsor, or jointly developed by the candidates. But that Everybody Knows what they are. They dont change. And everyone has agreed to them. And this was one of the things ive spent a lot of time on when ive done some of this and im sure you have, too, matt is making sure everyone is aware and you dont change the rules once somebody shows up. One of the most important things is that there is an opportunity for equal time. There are some debates where its very clear, you get the time signals, and you alternate and everyone has the same amount of time to answer. But there are other debates that are more fleeflowing. And its very important for someone to be keeping track of how many questions went to one person as opposed to another. And how long they really talked, so that you can begin to even it out. Believe me, here in the u. S. When we have our informal debate where theyre sitting, someone is probably keeping track of that time, and its usually reported. Its very important everyone has equal access. That doesnt mean a speaker will use all of his or her time, but they at least have to have the opportunity for that. Uninterrupted speaking opportunities, where no one is going to interrupt them. They have their time. That doesnt mean it doesnt happen. But then the rules begin to come into play, if somebodys interrupting, the moderator may take time from the person who interrupted. All of those types of things are recognized. And both with american and also international debates. The format matters. Whether you have a single moderator or you have a panel, it makes a difference in the dynamics of the debate. Which is one of the reasons why the commission went to the single moderator. The focus groups, a lot of feedback in general, indicated that the single moderator would really provide more emphasis on the candidates and more opportunity to debate rather than switching among people. If you have the town hall, where citizens are asking questions versus a journalist asking questions, you get a very different result. Citizens ask very different kinds of questions than journalists do, which gets back to that agenda idea. Whether you have a single rebuttal opportunity, where you have a chance to ask followup questions means you get more depth to an answer, especially if someones evading. So thats been a really important piece of research. Whos debating, how many candidates there are makes a difference. And in parliamentary systems, youre going to have multiple candidate debates. We typically have twoparty debates here, but in 1992, when we had three candidates, when ross perot joined the major party candidates, it made a real difference in the dynamics of the debates. The number of people there makes a difference. Whos asking the questions. Is it journalists . Is it the public . Do you have experts . And do you have the opponents asking questions . And one of the debates ill show you a brief clip from, they are doing more of that in nonpresident ial type of debates. And oftentimes in the primary debates for the u. S. President. But this has also happened in a lot of international debates. And its important in many cultures that the candidates actually do directly connect with one another. What else matters is the context of the campaign. When does the debate take place . In the u. S. , they typically want two weeks after the last debate. And thats usually the way the timing works. Because if there is a major error, the candidates want time to clarify that, to go out and deal with it, to talk about it, and to have the debates a little more in the distance. Whether its a close race or not makes a difference. And this may make a difference as to how many debates someone participates in. An incumbent whos in a close race is usually more willing to debate than one who isnt. Whether its an incumbent or a challenger. And their style of debate is often influenced by whether its an incumbent or a challenger. Challengers are much more aggressive. Incumbents have to look president ial. And so it really makes a difference in their demeanor and in the way they approach their arguments. The time, how long they get to answer, the length of the debate itself all has an influence on how much the public is going to learn. The culture. This is one of the things that i find when i do work internationally is to get a sense of what the viewership culture is, and whether or not the culture is amenable to Something Like a town hall. Several years ago the corian Broadcasting Center invited me and a few other scholars in to talk about the way we do debates, and they basically said a town hall wouldnt work here. That may not be the case ten years later. But ten years ago because debates were so new, they didnt feel it was appropriate or the right time to do it. So there are a lot of other cultural issues that come into play with how one does the debates, even who you are inviting. In georgia several years ago when i helped organize the mayoral debates, we had two rounds of debates. One was with the qualified candidates, and the nonqualified, the parties who had not reached a certain level in the previous election or didnt hold enough number of seats in the parliament. We made sure everyone had a chance. We ran it on two consecutive nights. The staging of the debate. Are they standing up, sitting down . Are they able to move around and talk to the people who are asking them questions . All of that, once again, affects the dynamic of the debate. And then the postdebate coverage. Thats one of the things here where we have the spin doctors, people who talk about what happened and why it was important or why it wasnt. Of course, everyone thinks their own candidate won. The postcoverage often influences what people think about the debate good they didnt have a chance to watch all of it. They read the coverage, listen to it, read the blogs. That can have as much influence some of the time as the debate themselves. Because it often clarifies factual errors that were made. So the coverage is also important. Basic thing is, do they matter, why do we do them. And they do. For people who have already made up their minds or leaning, they reinforce their choice and they often mean somebody gets up and goes out and votes. They feel better about the person for whom theyre voting. They tend to reinforce more than they change. For undecided voters, especially firsttime voters, they are very important. Once again, 20 or 30 years of research, of surveys, focus groups, and also exit interviews have shown that. They provide new information for nearly all viewers. Even people who follow the news have told us, and we found the same thing when we did this in other countries, they learned something that they didnt know about their own candidate that became important. They provide these unrehearsed, real moments. Theres always a question that no one expected. Or some type of a reaction. And how they handle it says a lot. And then they demonstrate the leadership traits. So they really do matter to voters. Okay. The impact of the social media is huge. And i wont i think if we can get the picture. Yes. One of the things thats happened in the u. S. In the last couple of elections, and its also been done in some other countries, are the meters, where they get a group of people who are acrosssection who watch the debate and then react to what is being said. Its either a positive reaction or negative reaction, or neutral. And so heres an example of this little device that they click on if they turn the dial. If theyre positive about it, theyll turn it positive. If theyre negative about it, they turn it negative. If they keep it in the middle, its neutral. And theres a group of people in the primary debate in the u. S. That are watching it. And then this is the way the graph comes out. So you can see the blue is positive. The red is negative. You can kind of see when somebody says something it attracts the actual moment in which this happens. So you begin to see which questions people reacted to out in an audience. Theyre nonscientific because its a small number of people. But it at least gives some indication. And on some of the networks, they will actually show these meters as the debate is going on. The other impacts with social media are that you can have realtime questions from viewers. One of the examples ill show you in a minute is where they had this group of journalists sitting off in the corner with their laptops, and people were emailing, or texting questions that they wanted asked, and then the journalists would screen them. And for one part of the debate, they actually used the questions that were coming in in realtime. The other thing thats interesting is that twitter and facebook, people are reacting. The media reports on that, in the u. S. , about how people were reacting. What were the most common tweets . What did people respond to . Chat rooms, people will be on live. Once again, when i was in georgia, they actually had a chat room going on simultaneously with the debate. And then when they rebroadcast the debate, you could see some of that going on. Instant polls, which are not scientific. As soon as the debates over, you can punch in a number, text it, tell who you thought won. And youre getting this very instantaneous poll. And comments on news stories. If you read the news stories, that are online, there are hundreds and thousands of comments about the debate. That people begin to get a reaction to. So