Where did you find yourself this past Wednesday night? Studying, playing video games, watching TV or maybe even out partying? Most likely few of you were watching the broadcast democratic candidate debate being held at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. The spread definitely would have been in my favor.

As we near the elections in 2008, political activity among prospective candidates continues to increase. One of the most traditional forms in which presidential hopefuls get to express their opinions is the formal debate.

The first nationally broadcast presidential debate was held in 1948 between republican candidates Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen. More famous are the set of seven debates held between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858 (Senatorial debates). These debates had a significant impact on public opinion and allowed the voters to compare competing views on controversial issues. This tradition of pointed informative debates is alive and well ‘ or is it?

Unlike the debates of early American history, not much seems to be accomplished during the modern debates between candidates. While the first nationally broadcast debate between Dewy and Stassen focused on communism, current debates attempt to cover the entire spectrum of controversy (health care, education, foreign policy, taxes ‘ the list goes on).

Similarly, while in their set of three-hour debates, Lincoln and Douglas explicitly stated their stances on the issues being debated. Nowadays, it may be easier to pick up a republican senator in a public bathroom than it is to get a candidate to actually state where they stand on an issue.

Nevertheless, there is still a multitude of broadcast debates. That must mean that Americans actually do care and that they actually are watching, right?

Wrong.

Similarly to the decline in voter turnout, the number of viewers watching broadcast debates has dropped significantly. The 1992 debates drew a whopping 97 million viewers, but the 1996 debates only attracted 46 million, a drop of more than half. The most viewers a presidential debate for 2008 has accumulated so far is 2.8 million for the CNN debate aired June 3. There is still some time before the 2008 election, but it is undeniable that American interest in candidate debates has declined.

The grim realizations that Americans are overwhelmingly uninterested in politics and that potential candidates shy away from their actual opinions both seem to hold true. Is the future of presidential debates, and campaigning as a whole, doomed?

There seems to be some hope. In an effort to change both the aforementioned problems, new ways of hosting presidential debates have been devised. Most notable was a debate sub-sponsored by YouTube. Americans from around the world had the opportunity to submit video questions for the participants to answer.

A similar debate aired online, hosted by comedian Bill Maher, incorporated comedy into the questioning.

While it is disheartening that we must turn to technology and comedy to extract American interest in politics, it is also a great sign of potential for good ol’ direct democracy. Technology may be the key to American attention and hopefully it can also pressure candidates to give direct answers. By election time next November we should know the answer, but I’d bet we can expect changes in the 58 percent of Americans who say presidential debates are boring and in the 50 percent who say they are useless.