The sloping red line offers a sobering prognosis for American democracy. A new report on improving

The sloping red line offers a sobering prognosis for American democracy. A new report on improving the presidential-debate process charts the precipitous decline of viewership: from above 60 percent of the voting-age population in 1960, when the first televised debates took place, to under 30 percent in 2012.

In truth, 1960 was a particularly high-water mark: viewership hasn’t cracked 50 percent since.

But the red line may also understate the problem. The largest segment of viewers watched only one of them. In 2012, the average viewing time was a scant 35 minutes.

Can this trend be changed? Can the content of debates be improved? Does the institution even matter? A new report from debate experts of both parties convened by the Annenberg Public Policy Center assumes that the answer to the third question is yes, and offers suggestions – some obvious, some provocative.

First, though, it’s worth dealing with the “do debates matter” issue. If matter means changing outcomes, the political science literature suggests that this is unlikely, despite all the effort that campaigns devote not only to debate prep but to negotiating arrangements down to the most picayune detail. Political conventions, for all their seeming obsolescence, have a bigger impact.

DEBATES DO MATTER

I’d argue this is the wrong question. The general election debates may matter to campaigns because they can have an impact at the margins. They matter to democracy because they help educate voters about the content of the candidates’ positions, as well as the quality of their minds.

But debate organizers could do a better job at both, and in the process entice more voters to watch, which is where the Annenberg group comes in. Co-chaired by Obama campaign adviser Anita Dunn and Romney campaign adviser Beth Myers, the group makes some basic suggestions to haul debates into the modern era.

Timing, for one: the rise of early voting argues for moving debates earlier. In 2012, nearly 7 percent of voters had cast their ballots before the third presidential debate, on Oct. 22.

Technology, for another: in a multiplatform, multicultural age, the debate feed should be readily available not only on traditional broadcast networks but on alternative venues, including Spanish language networks and social media.

The tougher challenge involves dislodging the candidates from delivering canned set pieces and premeditated one-liners. That will never be fully achieved, but the existing format promotes this air of a minutely choreographed minuet.

Hence the most intriguing of the Annenberg recommendations, to transform the debate structure and reduce the role of moderator.

One possibility would be a “chess clock” format under which candidates would be allotted 45 minutes of speaking time. “To take control of the floor, a candidate simply hits the chess clock,” the report suggests. “No answer, rebuttal or question may exceed three minutes.” Candidates would be able to challenge one another, directly.

In the commission’s model, the time would be spread, evenly, across eight topics. Even better, if riskier, would be to let candidates decide on their own how to manage their time, devoting more to tax reform and less to terrorism if they want.

The more Americans watch debates, and more of them, the better off we’ll be. Which is what makes the debate about debates worth having.

Washington Post Writers Group