Introduction
September 26, 1960 marked the beginning of televised presidential debates in the history of general elections in the United States of America. The constants in the 1960 debate, which occurred in Chicago, were Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. Analysts believe that it was an evenly matched debate. Additionally, most analysts believe that Nixon could have won if the date was aired only on radio. However, the television audience was inspired by Kennedy’s charm and personality, thereby considering him the winner.
Political scientists believe that Kennedy won the 1960 election mainly because of his outstanding performance during the debate (Dorning). This perspective illustrates the importance of televised presidential debates. In particular, the debates enable voters to see the presidential aspirants in a real world setting. This involves evaluating how candidates answer questions without scripts, as well as, their actions and reactions in public.
These evaluations usually influence voting pattern and voters’ perception of the candidates. It is against this backdrop that this paper examines the influence of televised debates on presidential elections (voters). It will also examine the effect of social media and instant feedback on presidential debates.
Informing the Public
The United States is a large country in terms of its geographical area and population. Thus, presidential candidates cannot easily traverse the entire country in order to meet voters and to articulate their policies. In this regard, presidential debates give candidates the opportunity to inform the public about their policy stance on various issues that affect the lives of Americans.
During the debates, candidates are asked the same questions and given the same amount to time to answer them. The importance of this system of debate is that it enables the electorate to compare candidates’ approaches to various issues that affect the country (Campbell 46). In this context, the debates help the public to decide on whom to vote for on the Election Day.
Presidential debates also enable the public to understand the personality traits of the candidates. Prior to the debates, most candidates are hardly known to the public in terms of their communication styles and ability to manage their emotions, as well as, their reaction to criticism.
However, the debates enable voters to examine the character of their preferred candidate in order to make informed decisions on the Election Day (Kraus 56). The factors that matter to the viewers of the presidential debates include how the candidates present themselves, their appearance, and their ability to connect directly with the audience. This indicates that the debates serve as a mechanism for assessing the character of presidential candidates.
However, presidential debates do not always provide enough information about the candidates and their policies. Candidates are usually aware of the public expectation concerning their performance during presidential debates. Consequently, they spend a lot of time and resources to prepare for the debates.
This includes rehearsing answers to potential questions and practicing to communicate in a manner that is likely to appeal to the audience (Kraus 79). In this regard, preparations enable candidates to conceal their weaknesses during the debates. Additionally, a candidate is likely to say what he believes will be appealing to the audience rather than what he believes in.
In some cases, the debates are stage-managed in order to favor the candidates. For instance, in 1988 the democrats and the republicans secretly signed a memorandum of understanding that enabled them to control the debate.
Concisely, they colluded to determine the composition of the interviewing panel and the audience, as well as, prohibiting follow-up questions (Brancaccio). The effect of this conspiracy is that the 1988 debate focused on what the candidates wanted to tell the public rather than what the electorate wanted to know.
Some scholars believe that presidential debates no longer serve as an important source of information to the public. This is because post-debate analyses tend to produce so much information that usually confuses voters rather than enlightening them (William and Shah 101-117). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that analysts usually give conflicting views concerning the winners and losers in the debates. Moreover, thousands of potential voters hardly watch the debates due to time constraints.
Influencing Election Outcome
Proponents of presidential debates believe that they are efficient and effective campaign tools that can easily change the outcome of an election. This assertion is often defended by the outcome of the 1960 and 2000 elections. In 1960, John “Kennedy’s average score in the polls was 50.5% one week before the first debate” (Dorning).
However, his score improved to 50.6% in the first week after the last debate. This favorable rating is believed to have helped Kennedy to win the election. Similarly, Gore is believed to have lost in 2000 due to his audible sighs and interruptions during the debates. Additionally, his faulty makeup job made the public to doubt his personality.
However, majority of the elections indicate that presidential debates have little impact on the decisions made by the electorate. For instance, John Kerry still lost the 2004 election despite winning in three debates (Dorning). Research reveals that the influence of presidential debates on voters stems from issues pertaining to style rather than substance.
The audience tends to pay attention to trivial issues such as a candidate’s response to a question that focuses on his private live rather than his reactions to questions on key issues such as taxes. In this regard, a candidate is likely to win the election despite losing in the debates as long as he can clearly articulate his policies in any other forum.
The influence of presidential debates tends to be low due to poor timing. Most debates are usually held just a few weeks to the Election Day. The debates occur after the majority of voters have made decisions concerning their preferred candidates. In this regard, most viewers of presidential debates focus on finding the weaknesses of the candidate they do not like and the strengths of their preferred candidate rather than judging them fairly (Kayla).
This partly explains why both analysts and viewers give conflict opinions concerning the winners and losers in the debates. Concisely, a person who has decided to vote for a particular candidate is not likely to change his mind, especially, if he doubts the authenticity of the debate’s outcome.
Some voters believe that the presidential debates do not facilitate effective and adequate assessment of the leadership skills of the candidates. Proponents of this perspective believe that one’s ability to articulate his policies before a large audience is influenced by several factors that might not be in his control.
For instance, poor reactions to questions often occur due to tension and anxiety rather than inadequate preparation or poor communication skills (Scott and Lavine 169-184). Thus, voters tend to give candidates a second chance by voting for them despite their dismal performance in the debates.
Role of Instant Feedback
In the last three decades, the media emerged as the most important stakeholder in the presidential debates. The analyses of various news channels and the type of TV used by viewers determine the influence of the presidential debates on voters. Debates are usually followed by immediate feedback in terms of instant “analysis, interpretations, interviews with experts, discussion of instant polls, replaying of highlights, and the commentary of candidates’ spokespeople” (Fridkin, Kenney and Gershon 2-44).
These instant analyses determine the influence of presidential debates on voters in the following ways. First, instant feedback increases the information that is available to voters. The instant analyses help viewers to interpret the messages conveyed by the candidates during the debate. Thus, people who watch the debates and instant analyses are likely to evaluate the candidates based on the available information in order to make the right choice on the Election Day.
Second, instant feedback reinforces the persuasion effect of presidential debates. Instant news analyses highlight and contextualize various aspects of the messages presented by the candidates during the debates. Additionally, they analyze the candidates’ rhetoric, gaffes, memorable highlights, and the implications of the debates on the candidates. These analyses influence voters’ perception of the candidates. This can be illustrated by the results of the 2004 presidential debate.
In particular, people who watched the debate and NBC’s instant feedback rated Bush favorably in nearly all aspects of leadership (Fridkin, Kenney and Gershon 2-44). By contrast, the instant feedback by CNN.com rated President Bush as the worst performer in the debate. The people who watched the debate and its analysis on CNN.com believed that Senator Kerry was the winner. This illustration shows that instant feedback by the media can improve or worsen the influence of presidential debates on voters.
However, the effect of instant feedback usually depends on the bias of the analysts. For example, a TV channel is likely to give favorable rating to a candidate it supports even though the candidate might have performed poorly during the debate. This shows that instant feedback or media analyses can play a greater role in influencing potential voters than the actual performance of the candidates during the debate.
Finally, presidential debates and media analyses influence voters through the framing effect. This involves structuring discussions about the debates in a manner that enables people to understand and to interpret candidates’ messages in particular way (Fridkin, Kenney and Gershon 2-44).
Media analyses usually frame discussions in terms of who won or lost in the debates. In this regard, the analyses can improve or diminish the persuasion effect of presidential debates on voters. Concisely, the analyses and discussions by the media can improve the persuasion effect of the debates if they are framed around issues that are appealing to potential voters or the areas that the candidates had outstanding performance during the debates.
The Social Media and Presidential Debates
Social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook play an integral role in presidential debates. Prior to the debates, social media sites act as a campaign tool that enables candidates to create awareness about their qualifications and policy stance on various issues. This involves engaging the public in discussions concerning political issues and answering questions raised by voters about the candidates (Bosmol). In this regard, social media affects presidential debates in two ways. First, it can reduce the viewership of the debates.
This is because candidates usually answer most of the questions raised by the public through their social media accounts before the debates take place. Thus, the public will have no incentive to spend 90 minutes to watch the debates. Second, social media campaigns enable candidates to win the support of undecided voters and to reinforce the loyalty of their existing supporters. Consequently, the debates have little or no influence on potential voters.
Social media sites also support the debates by spreading the messages conveyed by the candidates in a variety of ways (University of South California). To begin with, social media sites such as YouTube enable voters to access live feeds of the debates.
This enables people who have no access to TV to watch the debates as they occur. The persuasion effect of presidential debates is likely to improve if candidates’ messages reach a large audience. Unlike TV channels, social media sites save the videos of the debates, thereby enabling voters to watch them at their convenience.
Additionally, social media sites enhance the participation of voters in the debates by allowing them to express their opinions and to send questions directly to the candidates. In this regard, the presidential debates are likely to become more relevant and attractive to voters who want their opinions to be taken into account by the candidates.
Finally, the experience of the 2012 presidential election indicates that social media plays a fundamental role in determining the results of the debates (Bosmol). Most major TV channels such as CNN and Fox news incorporated feedback from social media sites in their computations of the candidates’ scores.
In this case, a candidate with the largest following in social media is likely to obtain a favorable rating, thereby being declared the winner in the debate. Social media sites also provide a forum through which voters discuss the messages of the candidates after the debates (Scott and Lavine 169-184).
These discussions can reinforce the persuasion effect of presidential debates if the voters share the candidates’ messages with their colleagues without distorting them. However, misrepresentation of the candidates’ messages through the social media can reduce the influence of presidential debates. For example, incorrect interpretation of a candidates’ policy stance can lower his rating, thereby reducing the number of his supporters.
Conclusion
This paper examined the influence of presidential debates on voters. The findings indicate that presidential debates have changed the outcome of elections on a few occasions. However, most candidates win the elections despite losing in the debates. Instant feedback about the debates determines how voters interpret and understand candidates’ massages after the debates.
Thus, they can improve or worsen the ability of presidential debates to influence the voting pattern. The social media supports the presidential debates by enabling more people to watch them and to express their opinions concerning the results. However, the increased use of social media as a campaign tool might reduce the importance of debates in future.
Works Cited
Bosmol. Impact of Social Media on the Presidential Debate. Bosmal.com, 29 Oct. 2012. Web.
Brancaccio, David. The History of Presidential Debates. Public Broadcasting Service, 24 Sep. 2004. Web.
Campbell, James. The American Campaigns: USA Presidential Campaigns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print.
Dorning, Mike. Value of Debates. Portland Press Herald, 4 Oct. 2012. Web.
Fridkin, Kim, Patrick Kenney and Sarah Gershon. Capturing the Power of a Campaign Event: The 2004 Presidential Debate in Tempe. Academic. Tempe: Arizona State University, 2005. Print.
Kayla, Webley. How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World. Time.com, 23 Sep. 2010. Web.
Kraus, Sidney. Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000. Print.
Scott, Basinger and Howard Lavine. “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 9.1(2005): 169-184. Print.
University of South California. Social Media and Debates. University of South California, 1 Oct. 2012. Web.
William, Eveland and Dhavan Shah. “The Impact of Individual and Interpersonal Factors on Precieved News Media Bias.” Political Psychology 24.1 (2003): 101-117. Print.