1. THE ROLE OF DEBATES ON VOTER EDUCATION CARLY GRIFFITH UNIV200

2. HOW DEBATES BEGAN: NORMS, RULES, MODERATORS AND AUDIENCE

3. SYNTHESIS PARAGRAPH The first presidential primary debate was seen in 1948 between 2 Republicans in Oregon. Source 6 brings up the idea that primary debates are more influential than general debates, as the public must choose between multiple candidates, rather than the one they identify with. This helps me argue that primary debates are more educational than general debates because the information being received is from multiple people and potential vice presidents. The background of the beginning of presidential debates can be seen in sources 4 and 5. Source 5, an excerpt from the book Inside the Presidential Debates, gives firsthand accounts of what happened back stage at the first presidential debate between JFK and Nixon, and how the actions taken after JFK’s assassination affected the debates in later years. This information helps me to argue that debates started a trend of an efficient way to get information straight from the candidates to the public. However, critics of these first debates stated it was more for show than education, which helps me argue that debates may not be the best way to relay information to people as they are being blinded by the entertainment aspect. Source 4 helps support the idea that debates are not a good education source, as it has transcripts from every presidential debate up until 2012, including the JFK/Nixon debates. They show the moderators interrupting the candidates and the candidates biting back, feeding into the argument that the debates were more for entertainment. Although it was not conducted back when the debates began, source 2, written in 1995, helps me argue that debates were a more effective way of teaching the public about the presidential campaign, rather than day time talk shows, through the data they collected in an experiment comparing the affect of traditional vs. non- traditional media on voter learning.

4. SOURCE 2: VOTER LEARNING IN THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY D. WEAVER AND D. DREW In this experiment, citizens of Indiana were tested to see if non-traditional media, such as non-political talk shows and morning TV, gave them a better knowledge of the presidential campaign than traditional media, such as newspaper, radio and the televised debates would. Their findings included that people have a greater issue knowledge when exposed to traditional media, and that there was no association between issue knowledge and non- traditional media. They also found that neither form of media had an influence on the people’s likeliness to vote. This makes an argument that televised debates and political coverage of those debates was a better way of educating the public, rather than non- traditional media.

5. SOURCE 4: COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES In 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was founded as a way to make sure that the Republican and Democratic debates were run the same way. They have a collection of every presidential debate from 1960 to 2012. Each debate includes the participants, the moderators, the viewership and the transcript from the debate. I read through a 1960 debate between JFK and Nixon and found that the candidates did not stick to the exact questions asked and there was interruption from the moderators, similar to today. This makes an argument of whether debates are the best form of gaining knowledge, with the questions not being answered and the moderators interluding. However, opposing this idea is the viewership of the debates. This shows how many people are watching the debate, possibly looking to gain more knowledge. This makes an argument that debates are a good way to educate voters, as the viewership is high.

6. SOURCE 5: INSIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES BY N. MINOW AND C. LAMAY In this book excerpt, the author, Newton Minow (known as the father of presidential debates), describes what happened during the first televised presidential debate and the years after. He explains how JFK stated that without the debates, he would not have won the election. After his assassination, the debates were stopped due to the equal time law, which was revoked in 1976. About 60% of the adult population watched this first debate, making the argument that it would be an effective way to relay information to the public. However, critics of the debate stated that the debate seemed more for entertainment than for education. This makes the argument that while information may be getting passed on to much of the public through the debates, the public could’ve been watching the debates for show rather than to be educated.

7. SOURCE 6: EIGHT DECADES OF DEBATE BY K. KONDIK AND G. SKELLEY One of the pieces of information this article gives is that presidential primary debates can actually be more influential on voting than the general elections. This is because instead of simply voting for the person on their side, they must choose between multiple people of the same political party. This give the argument that presidential primary debates are more important than the general debates and they should be made a priority. If the primary debates were to get more viewership than the general election debates, this could increase voter turnout at the primaries, due to the knowledge of all the running candidates.

8. PROGRESSION OF DEBATES: NORMS, RULES, MODERATORS AND AUDIENCE

9. SYNTHESIS PARAGRAPH Source 4 gives background to the progression of presidential debates with the archive of transcripts it contains. While reading a transcript from a 1988 Bush/Dukakis debate, it becomes apparent that cracking jokes about the other candidate is becoming a standard. This helps me argue the idea that the presidential debates are being used to entertain the public rather than educate them. Sources 1, 7 and 8 all give statistical information to support my claims. Source 1 helps me argue that debates are only effective when it comes to certain topics, as it was shown through data that what the candidates are discussing at debates and what the general public is most concerned about vary. Source 7 helps me argue that presidential primary debates are more educational and important than general debates. Their data showed how drastically people’s opinions can change after watching the primary debates, stating that, for example, the expected “winner” of the debates was significantly different than the perceived “winner”. Finally, source 8, written by the same professors of the 1992 voter learning experiment, tested the effects of traditional media and debates versus non-traditional media on voter learning and interest. This helps me argue that debates are a better way of educating the voting public, as they stated that the majority of campaign coverage was on strategy rather than what was being talked about between candidates. Their study also found that the debates help people become educated, but do not effect the likeliness of voting, which helps me argue that debates only serve an educational role in the presidential campaign.

10. SOURCE 1: FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND ISSUE VOTING BY J. ALDRICH, J. SULLIVAN AND E. BORGIDA This study looks at whether the issues being debated have affect on the public’s voting choices. For example, the candidates spent a lot of time discussing foreign and defense policy, and it is assumed that the majority of the voting public does not understand these issues or does not have a strong attitude towards the issues. While foreign affairs and defense issues were some of the most important, others included unemployment, taxes and social security. This makes the argument that the debates are an effective way of educating the voting public in some issues. However, unless all of the issues that the country thinks are the most important are discussed in the debates, they are not doing the best they could to inform uneducated voters.

11. SOURCE 4: COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES Reading a transcript between George Bush and Michael Dukakis, it is clear that the act of joking about the other candidate is becoming more present. This makes an argument that the debates are being used for show and entertainment, rather than being used to become more knowledgeable about the candidates of the election. Also, the viewership of these debates was just as high as the original presidential debates and that could make two opposing arguments. One, that agrees with the previous argument, that the high viewership is strictly due to the entertaining nature of the debates. The other being that the high viewership of the debates is due to a large number of people wanting to hear the candidates standpoints on issues and wanting to learn.

12. SOURCE 7: HOW A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATE CHANGED ATTITUDES OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS BY M. YAWN, K. ELLSWORTH, B. BEATTY AND K. KAHN This journal looks at how the public’s view of candidates changes based on the presidential primary debates. They tested the attitudes of a group of people towards the candidates before and after the primary debate, as well as recorded who the group was planning to vote on before and after the debate. They found that the expected winner of the debate was drastically different from the perceived winner. They also found that the pretest of who the people in the group were voting for was drastically different than the posttest of who they were voting for. This makes an argument that the primary debates are a very efficient way of educating the public, because even if they are stuck on one candidate, the debates have the power to introduce new candidates and perspectives as well as change opinions.

13. SOURCE 8: VOTER LEARNING AND INTEREST IN THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY D. WEAVER AND D. DREW This journal was written by the same two professors who conducted the same experiment in 1992, involving knowledge and the media. In 2000, it was found that over 70% of presidential campaign coverage was focused on strategy rather than issues. This makes the argument that the debates are a better way of educating the public, as they are focusing on the issues while other forms of media are focusing on the parts of the presidential campaign that the public does not need to become educated in it. They also found that debate exposure was the highest predictor of campaign interest, which makes the argument that debates are the most effective way to give the public knowledge about the election. However, it was found that traditional media, such as the debates, did not make a different on the public’s likelihood of voting, which makes the argument that the debates could be helping people get educated, but they make no difference when it comes to voter turnout.

14. DEBATES OF TODAY: NORMS, RULES, MODERATORS AND AUDIENCE

15. SYNTHESIS PARAGRAPH The debates of today have changed from the original presidential debates, however the role of them on the education of the country still has different views. Source 4 helps me make the argue that the presidential debates are just a spectacle used to entertain the country rather than inform it. In a transcript from a 2012 Obama/Romney debate, there was a good amount of joking and interruption from the candidates and moderator. Source 3 looks at a different kind of debate. In 2008, CNN and YouTube partnered with each other to bring an online video-question style debate to both the Republican and Democratic primary debates. The authors of this journal did a test to see if there was any difference in young people’s education and attitude of the election. Their findings help me argue that non-traditional debates are a better information source for this era. They found that young people were less cynical of the presidential campaign and had a greater knowledge of the election after watching the online debates. With today’s times being electronic and Internet-oriented, the non- traditional debates could increase voter knowledge and voter turnout at primaries. Relating to this year’s race specifically, source 6 brings up all of the non-political candidates who have run in the past couple years. This helps me argue that the primary debates are effective in bringing in new people and ideas to the presidential race, and give people more information to work off of when voting in the primaries.

16. SOURCE 3: NOT YOUR PARENTS’ PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BY M. MCKINNEY AND L. RILL This journal looks at the effect of the 2008 CNN/YouTube debates on young people’s education of the election and their attitudes towards the campaign. They had 3 groups; one watching the Republican YouTube debate, one watching the Democratic YouTube debate, and one watching a traditional journalist led debate. They found that the cynicism of the young people was decreased after watching the debates, making the argument that the debates have the power to give information to the public and can change opinions in a small amount of time. They also found that the young people felt more knowledgeable only after watching the YouTube debates. This makes the argument that non-traditional debates are more effective than the traditional televised debates in today’s time, as we are a society gravitating more towards electronics and the Internet.

17. SOURCE 4: COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES The transcripts provided by this website are very helpful when looking at the debates of today. I read a 2012 debate transcript between Obama and Romney and found that there was much interruption not only between the moderators and candidates, but between candidates as well. There was also lots of bad-talking between the candidates. This helps the argument that debates are only good for show and are not helpful when trying to learn about the current presidential campaign.

18. SOURCE 6: EIGHT DECADES OF DEBATES BY K. KONDIK AND G. SKELLEY This journal mentions all of the people in the past 40 years, including Trump and Carson, that have been part of the presidential primary debates, but have had no political or debating experience. This makes the argument that debates are effective in bringing new people and new ideas into the political race. Therefore this could also bring more people to the primary elections as they have a wider selection of backgrounds to choose their candidates from.