In this era of heightened political polarization, it can sometimes feel like America is in constant turmoil. Social media squabbles over off-hand remarks often escalate into screaming matches, and polls show that distrust of institutions is on the rise and hope for the future is in short supply. Whether it’s presidential debates or small-group discussions on Facebook, X, or TikTok, many Americans are left frustrated by the landscape of political debate. But that perception may be misguided. New research coauthored by Berkeley Haas Assistant Professor Erica Bailey and Sheena Iyengar and Michael White of Columbia Business School suggests that people are systematically underestimating both the frequency and format of political debate.
When it comes to partisan and nonpartisan debates, the federal regulations set out by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) allow for debates with candidates of any party, provided that those candidates meet certain criteria:
The CPD is committed to ensuring these debates are informative for voters. Since its founding in 1987, the organization has sought to maximize the amount of time and attention the debates focus on the candidates’ positions by experimenting with different formats. The current debate format, for example, includes a coin toss determining who will ask the first question, two minutes to answer each question, and then one minute of follow-up comments. The debates also use a system of colored lights resembling traffic signals, with green indicating 30 seconds remaining, yellow indicating 15 seconds, and red indicating only 5 seconds are left.