Shortchanged on debates
Leaders’ debates are the most important part of an election campaign. Everyone seems to agree on that.
The official Leaders’ Debates Commission certainly thinks so. In its report after the 2019 campaign it called debates “key moments that helped Canadians cast informed votes.” Just so no one missed the point, it also described debates as “pivotal.”
So why, we wonder, are Canadian voters being so badly shortchanged when it comes to these important, key, pivotal (choose your adjective) events?
Why, in a campaign that’s being conducted in the shortest possible legal time, and with direct contact between politicians and voters constrained by public health restrictions, are we getting just the bare minimum of debates — two?
They’re scheduled for Sept. 8 (in French) and Sept. 9 (in English). They will be the only chance for voters to assess the leaders side by side, to see them clashing directly, fielding questions on all topics, and challenging each other.
The conventional wisdom about debates is mostly correct. They do give voters the best opportunity to get a sense of how the leaders think on their feet and react to an unscripted, unpredictable situation. For the other 34 days, the parties do everything they can to keep the leaders in as safe, predictable environment as possible.
It doesn’t actually have to be done this way. We’re getting just two debates because that serves the interests of the parties and the TV networks that broadcast them. Not because it’s necessarily best for voters.
There’s nothing magic about having just two debates. The Liberal government set up the Leaders’ Debates Commission in 2019 and gave it a mandate to organize one debate in each official language. And now that minimum has effectively become the maximum number of debates we get.
Imagine if things were organized according to what’s actually best for voters trying to make up their minds about who to vote for on Sept. 20. For one thing, there would be more debates. Even in a five-week campaign, the leaders could surely meet more than twice. Given the limitations on inperson campaigning, why not once a week?
One of the benefits of more debates would be to lower the stakes for each one. Under the current arrangement, leaders fear they might blow their party’s whole campaign with one big misstep. There’s no opportunity to make up for a mistake, so they play it safe and just stick to their talking points. More debates would let them loosen up.
More debates would allow organizers to mix up the formats. Perhaps a couple would involve all the party leaders. Others could include just those with substantial support, so less pointless chatter from no-hopers.
The networks, of course, would resist more debates. They hate giving up lucrative prime-time advertising revenue. But it shouldn’t be up to them. It should be a condition of their broadcasting license that they carry national debates every few years.
And why limit debates to just party leaders? Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear from leading party figures in specialized debates on the economy, foreign affairs, health and social issues? With so many online options, they wouldn’t all have to be carried by traditional broadcasters to reach a sizable audience.
The official debates commission doesn’t have to organize all these events. Nor should it. The commission was loaded from the start with the mandate it got from the Trudeau government. There’s no reason why other groups — news organizations, citizens groups, universities — shouldn’t sponsor debates of their own.
We know all this seems like a distant dream. Sadly, debates are still organized and scheduled mostly for the convenience of the parties and the broadcasters. Voters’ interests are way down the list. But it’s important to keep in mind: it could be done better, and it should.