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 exam