his year's debate over debates has produced a surprise winner: the viewing public. The audience-friendly schedule and mixture of formats point toward an enlightening debate series that puts the interests of voters before those of the candidates. Additionally, the preservation of the Commission on Presidential Debates as sponsor further strengthens the institutionalization of general election debates.
Let us review the balance sheet to see what gains the public made in this year's negotiations, and where the campaigns have shaped the events toward their own ends.
The format: Critics have long agitated for a combination of programming structures in presidential debates, and just such a blend is in store this year.
The Boston debate will employ the traditional candidates-at-lecterns format, the St. Louis debate will be a town hall, and in Winston-Salem, N.C., a new format will make its debut: an unrestricted talk-show structure, with participants and the moderator seated around a table.
Format variety matters for two reasons. It serves to level the playing field for the participants. A candidate who excels in one kind of program may be less effective in another, giving neither side a particular advantage. And viewers gain different information from different formats. Audiences may learn about issues positions in the traditional debate, observe informal communication dynamics in the talk show, and see how the candidates relate to ordinary citizens in the town hall.
The most innovative of these formats is the sit-down debate, a structure presidential campaigns have heretofore resisted. The fact that both George Bush and Al Gore have excelled in this milieu creates the potential for a fascinating match. Less positive is the news that, at the insistence of the campaigns, the town hall questions will be submitted in advance and selected by the moderator. A hallmark of people's debates is their unpredictability. This frightens candidates, and Bush and Gore have succeeded in reducing some of their fears by making sure the audiences questions are vetted.
The timing: The schedule of four debates within two weeks, while not as compressed as the highly watched miniseries of 1992, offers the opportunity for viewers to experience the programs as an ongoing civics lesson spread over several nights.
In 1992, when four debates unfolded over nine days, the result was a national dialogue that flowed from one event into the next. We can expect a similar situation this year. Furthermore, the four October dates chosen by the sponsors guarantee the widest possible exposure on all major broadcast and cable news networks, something the Bush campaign had sought to avoid.
The moderator: Jim Lehrer, with four previous presidential and vice presidential debates under his belt, is a solid choice to guide the programs. Still, audiences deserved to see at least one other moderator. Just as format variety produces different kinds of learning, so might different moderators. In selecting Lehrer for all three debates, the campaigns betray their overwhelming desire to minimize risk.
It is worth noting that neither Tim Russert nor Larry King, both of whom actively solicited a moderator slot, got the nod. Let future would-be moderators take heed, and not attempt to interpose themselves into debate negotiations.
The sponsorship: Perhaps the most gratifying outcome of this year's predebate wrangling is that the institution of presidential debates emerges stronger than ever. As Governor Bush learned, candidates tamper with these events at their peril. Whatever complaints one can lodge against the Commission on Presidential Debates, the organization remains the most experienced and respected of potential sponsors. Had Bush pulled off his counterproposal of network sponsorship, the effect would likely have been the destruction of an organization that has responsibly guided every presidential and vice presidential debate since 1988.
Some might argue that the commission's affiliation with the major parties compromises its neutrality and creates impossible obstacles for independent and third party participation. But, as this most recent round of maneuverings indicates, a sponsor needs considerable clout to offset the demands of the campaigns.
Each series that occurs under the commission's auspices bolsters the power of this organization to represent the electorate in future negotiations.
Unlike the candidates, unlike the networks, the debate commission defines its primary responsibility as citizen education.
In the 2000 debate over debates this objective has been remarkably well served.
Alan Schroeder is a professor at Northeastern University and author of ''Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High Risk TV.''
