Debate Time Distribution

At this point in the presidential campaign, debates play an important role in introducing the presidential candidates to the American people, but they are often accused of being more or less rigged in favor of the more established candidates. According to Talk Clock, a recurring feature on Chris Dodd's blog, the candidates which are leading in the polls are already being allowed to speak the most during the debates. Talk Clock has monitored three debates (two Democratic and one Republican) so far and published the number of minutes each participating candidate spoke at each debate. In the New Hampshire Democratic debate, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards spoke the most, with Edwards speaking nearly a minute longer than the next most garrulous candidate. In the New Hampshire Republican debate, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney spoke the most, with Romney speaking nearly four minutes (!) longer than the next candidate on the totem pole. In the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards once again spoke the most, and Edwards spoke more than a minute longer than the next most garrulous candidate. In each case, the three leading candidates spoke more than the lower-tier candidates did; I doubt very strongly that this is a coincidence. Is it right that debate time should be such a close reflection of poll numbers this early on in the presidential campaign? At what point should the debate organizers themselves be considered complicit in the marginalization of some candidates and the glorification of others?

It certainly is not easy to run a fair debate even if that is what the debate organizers and debate moderator truly want to do, which I don't think they usually do. The candidates themselves frequently contrive to take more time for themselves; some, by contrast, often answer questions relatively succinctly and thus do not even take up their allotted time! Still, it is the candidates who are asked the most questions and the candidates who are allowed to break the rules that end up speaking the most. It seems far too much of a coincidence for the main-tier candidates to get the most speaking time in three different debates. The disparity in minutes spoken becomes staggering when one compares the candidate that speaks the most with the candidate that speaks the least; it's in the neighborhood of 8-10 minutes for all three debates. Clearly, some candidates are getting more opportunities to speak their message than others are.

One rationale for asymmetric debates categorizes candidates based on their electability. Ultimately, the American people will choose a president between two major party candidates -- most of the Democrats and Republicans in the race now will be eliminated long before November 2008. Since the ultimate choice that really matters won't involve most of the candidates, highlighting the contending candidates now is best for the voters. The problem with this approach is that poll numbers at this early point in time mean little, so it is difficult to gauge who exactly is a true contender and who will fizzle out perhaps before election year has even begun. Fred Thompson has emerged as a major Republican candidate in polls even though he has not even begun his campaign officially yet; I strongly doubt that he could get as many real votes as he is getting poll votes if the primaries began today without his having campaigned or participated in any debates. In other words, I don't even think a lot of the people who answer political polls take the process that seriously -- by extension, I don't think polls mean enough to be used to determine who should speak in the debates.

Another argument focuses on the entertainment factor. No, debates aren't primarily entertainment vehicles, but ultimately they are most informative when they can hold the viewers' attention. The CNN/YouTube Democratic debate was particularly entertaining in part due to the format which eschewed asking many questions to all the candidates in favor of letting one or two respond to particular questions. This debate avoided the flurries of similar answers that usually occur when subjects on which most candidates share similar views are raised, but at the cost of letting each candidate have his or her say on each subject. That cost is significant, in my opinion; even though the YouTube debate was my favorite of the debates I've watched so far this year, I cannot hold it up as a model debate because it was more entertaining than it was fair.

I hope that the Dodd campaign will continue to monitor the debates. Holding the debate organizers and moderators accountable for debate time distribution is an important first step to having fairer debates, which I certainly hope we will see in the future.