This election season, there were notable changes to the structure of presidential debates. Between no live audiences, microphone muting, no opening statement and no pre-written notes, this year brought surprising adjustments to the debates’ format. The Sept. 10 debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump also introduced a new aspect: live fact-checking during the debaters’ arguments. We don’t know how to feel about these new changes.

Alterations to this election season’s debate format were debuted during the June 27 presidential debate between former Democratic nominee President Joe Biden and Republican Nominee Trump. The absence of a live audience was surprising to us, as this is the first time that no live audience was present since the presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon in 1960.  

This practice carried on to the Harris-Trump debate that took place with no audience. The primary source of interruption to the candidates came from the moderators in the form of fact-checking or attempting to enforce the time limit.

According to an article by Politico, Trump’s refusal stands on claims that the event was “rigged,” specifically attributing the injustice to the live fact-checking that occurred during the debate. The Washington Post reports that Trump was fact-checked five times during the debate, whereas Harris wasn’t fact-checked on any statements in the moment. However, after the debate, ABC published a full report including the legitimacy of her claims. It stated that during the debate, Harris made five valid claims, five claims in need of context and three false reports, while Trump made zero valid claims, four in need of context and nine false reports. 

We, as audience members, have observed nominees fact-checking each other while the moderators have stayed silent in the past. A prime example of this is the debate between Biden and Trump in 2020, in which the presidential candidates spent more time interrupting each other than actually debating, which we found exhausting to watch. Although muting candidates’ microphones while the other candidate is speaking can avoid the “bickering” that was evident during the Trump-Biden debate, we feel muting mics too frequently takes away from a candidate’s responsibility to hold both themselves and their opponent accountable.

Additionally, microphone muting leaves us with another question: who’s in charge of muting the mics? There were obvious inconsistencies throughout the debate regarding when mics were on or off. This allowed candidates’ retorts to be heard at the discretion of those controlling the mics. USA Today noted that even without hot mics, nominees’ reactions during their opponent’s speeches were still worth hearing to some viewers, and we agree. We feel that it should not be the job of someone behind the scenes to decide what audiences should be able to hear and what is muted. 

With moderators pausing for fact-checks and active microphone control, we can’t help but wonder if the new structure of presidential debates actually gives viewers and voters the best idea of what candidates represent. Interaction from moderators allows the framing of the debate to be manipulated, regardless of if the candidates themselves are being disruptive. 

Instead, we think the candidates should have a hot mic, active in the entirety of the debate. This allows each opponent the opportunity to interject and instantly react to comments made by the other candidate. We think providing the audience with a candidate’s unfiltered comments will give insight into how the candidates hold themselves, as well as the professionalism they maintain.

With this in mind, we also think it is important to limit the amount of fact-checking that is being done by the hosts of the debate. Instead, we urge the candidates to be thorough in their research and preparation prior to the debate and debunk claims made by their opponent on their own. We think this would provide Americans more context to decide who is “the winner” of the debate. 

Many Americans, us included, are still processing how they feel about this year’s second presidential debate. According to PBS, Harris claims that she and Trump “owe it to voters” to have another debate before the election, but it is unclear if that will actually happen, considering Trump publicly declined the invite of a second debate on social media. However, vice presidential candidates Tim Walz and JD Vance have agreed to a debate moderated by CBS News, scheduled for Oct. 1.