The Substance of Presidential Debates, Then and Now

The Substance of Presidential Debates, Then and Now
Published: 24 Oct, 2012
3 min read

Credit: blog.americanhistory.si.edu

Carter/Ford

The presidential debates have become a staple of our current electoral process, featuring the candidates of the two major parties in a showdown regulated by a single moderator. However, the substance of presidential debates has deteriorated and this familiar format has changed dramatically since the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy in 1960.

It would be another sixteen years before presidential candidates agreed to confront each other on national television. The 1976 debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, and pitted Gerald Ford against Jimmy Carter in a series of three televised events. The LWV would continue to sponsor the presidential and vice presidential debates until the 1988 election. The presidential debates that ran under the LWV featured a panel of seated reporters and journalists who took turns posing questions to the candidates. In turn, the debaters had a few minutes to answer question, at which point the inquirer could ask a follow up question.

This format was designed to get past rehearsed party rhetoric and put the candidate's political views and policy in the spotlight. While the topics for the first two rounds were agreed upon ahead of time, the last debate was open and allowed the panel to address subjects outside the set topics.

This is in direct contrast to the format later developed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which allows the two respective campaigns to negotiate contracts behind closed doors. As a result, the format guideliens have grown increasingly long and complex.

The debate contract, or “Memorandum of Understanding,” grew from three pages in 1984 to twenty one in 2012. The candidates' campaigns also get to choose the format and topics of the debate, who attends, what the dress code is, and the time of the event. It was the increasing pressure from the Republican and Democratic campaigns to gain more control of formatting that led to the LWV withdrawing its sponsorship in 1988.  The League of Women Voters issued a statement condemning the CPD:

The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public... The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands.

In 1992 the CPD introduced a town hall-style debate to encouraged civilian participation and increase the spontaneity of questions posed. The town hall debate of 1992 featured unrestricted questions put forth by the American public. These questions were accompanied by follow up responses from the moderator, Carole Simpson, who pushed the candidates to remain on topic and go beyond their rehearsed platforms.

By 1996, the follow up questions were banned and by 2000 the moderator was screening questions that were written on index cards. These controversial restrictions were addressed this year when moderator Candy Crowley said she planned to ask both candidates follow up questions.

The current form of the CPD has removed the debate aspect from Presidential elections. As we saw with this year's debate series, they seem to further partisan rhetoric and make politics an entertaining popular spectacle. The CPD-run debates allow candidates to dispense rehearsed partisan talking points, and attack each other's platforms without questioning the specifics of policy. The intended purpose of the debates was to inform the American voter, but this mission seems hindered now.

IVP Donate

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read