Fredrick C. Harris is a professor of political science at Columbia University, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of the Center on African-American Politics and Society.

As corporate money and influence has come to dominate our political system, commanding legislative agendas in state houses and on Capitol Hill, the voices of ordinary citizens are being drowned out. To redress that, and to enhance the quality of presidential debates, audience members should be more than merely spectators or cheerleaders and instead begin directly posing questions to candidates.

The debate structure has not caught up with the way citizens use social media to communicate political commitments and viewpoints. Social media has fostered an engaged — and often times contentious – citizenry, reducing the influence of elite-driven opinions on voters’ perspectives.

But the debates, managed by established journalists, reflect the elite discourse on the presidential race, skewing perspectives. The journalists are cast as celebrities, asking questions of candidates who, themselves, operate in a celebrity-obsessed culture that seems to pay more attention to the personalities of candidates than their policy positions. This has led to news coverage on debates getting bogged down on the performance of the journalists’ debate performances, which just adds to the spectacle. When the Fox anchor Megyn Kelly asked Donald Trump about his disparaging comments about women the news coverage of the debate became more about Kelly and Trump, and less about policies that affect women.

Had ordinary citizens — women, with concerns about the work-life balance, equal pay for equal work and abortion — there would be less discussion about whether Trump respects women and more focus on substantive policy issues affecting women.

We should think of presidential debates as public forums, with ordinary people and members of issue constituencies. A debate on criminal justice reform, for example, might include activists from Black Lives Matter, police officers and union leaders, ex-offenders, people active in neighborhood crime watch organizations, crime victims and journalists who cover criminal justice issues. Or a debate forum on the economy would have candidates’ field questions from small business owners, unemployed and underemployed workers, tax reform policy organizations, union leaders and organizers and journalists who cover businesses.

Rather than pander to one particular constituency by answering questions that would be pleasing for them to hear, candidates would be forced to face people who are directly influenced by existing policies or policies they are proposing as candidates. While ordinary citizens might not know specific details of issues, as journalists do, they have a sense of how their day-to-day experiences lend insight into public policies that affect them directly.



Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

