Illustration by Anaelda Ramos

There have been many departures from tradition this election cycle regarding presidential debates, like muted microphones and a lack of opening statements. One key change — a differentiation with dangerous implications for the future of our democracy — is not being thoroughly scrutinized: no live audience. 

Getting a ticket to a presidential debate has always been nearly impossible — one New York Times writer likens the task to getting tickets to the Super Bowl or World Series. Nevertheless, just eight years ago, it was a task managed by 352 WashU students. 

WashU hosted the second presidential debate of the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Politicians, businesspeople, and celebrities filed into the Athletic Complex alongside student-lottery winners and students who were able to volunteer as ushers. Before the debate went live, the audience was met with welcoming remarks from then-Student Union (SU) president Kenneth Sng. 

This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for student attendees — and especially for the then-SU president — one that has not been afforded to students this election cycle. In a departure from tradition, the first 2024 presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump lacked a studio audience. So did last week’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. According to TIME, “The rule change was initially set by the Biden campaign, which argued in May that the debate commission’s ‘model of building huge spectacles with large audiences at great expense simply isn’t necessary or conducive to good debates.’” 

There is no doubt that these debates, regardless of audience, produce a spectacle. They do so by their very nature, and every television network that airs these debates is counting on their entertainment potential. Removing the audience does not remove that spectacle. It simply removes one necessary obstacle between political debates and purely televised entertainment. This removal puts in place a message that could have dramatic consequences for democracy in this country — that politics belong in a big, important, empty room, and that the American people are not welcome. While other areas of television, like news broadcasting, don’t do so in front of a live audience, this is not an appropriate comparison to a presidential debate, as news broadcasting is not a direct product of nor a means to American democracy.

In reference to the June debate, which also had no live audience, Professor Steven Fein of Williams College was pleased with the change. Having studied the psychology of presidential debates, he told The Guardian, “[It] will reduce significantly the chances that the focus of the debate will be not on what is actually said, but on all this stuff around it — the reaction of the audience and playing to the audience.”

If the goal of anti-audience advocates is truly to eliminate spectacle and distraction from political events, perhaps they should look more closely at the Republican National Convention and the 70 content creators who promoted it, or the Democratic National Convention, which featured a televised performance by Pink.

This is an issue that should concern all voters, regardless of party affiliation. Withdrawing the opportunity to hear country-altering arguments by presidential candidates live and in-person undermines the democratic principles that each candidate is purporting to protect.