Election #6 Another Debate (A Good One This Time)

I normally would not have gone to a second local debate but the one I attended a week or so ago was so disappointing (as was the leaders' debate) that I felt the need to go out again to see if I could get a better feeling for the candidates that I will have to choose from.

I am pleased to say that the debate last night was pretty good. The fact that it was in a theatre with great sightlines, really comfortable seats and lots of legroom may have had something to do with my satisfaction but there was also a better format and a great moderator. As well, there were only four candidates on stage. I am not sure if other candidates were not invited or if some of the candidates have realized that they did not have a chance of being elected and have dropped out of the race. But having fewer people on stage meant that there was more time for questions.

There were three questions posed by the local chamber of commerce (the sponsors of the evening) and the other 24 questions came from participants at the debate. 27 questions is a lot to get through, but because the session lasted for almost two and a half hours - no one seemed to feel rushed. The range of questions included ones about abortion, the economy, the environment and a number of questions about local issues including the opioid crisis, the need for treatment centres and for affordable housing. It was a much wider range of question than were available at the other debates that I witnessed. It was of course not a debate. Each of the four candidates answered the question and in general avoided discussing another party's platform or track record in part because if another party was mentioned then that candidate got extra time to rebut the comments. But there was sufficient time for all to speak and to indicate their party's position.

The other well-designed thing about the event was the fact that someone had control over the microphones and as soon as an individual candidate had used their time - the microphone was turned off. This meant that there was no cross-talk. The national debate organizers could learn from this technique.

After the last two debates, I wondered if there was any point in watching them. I am now convinced that there is a way to have the candidates on the stage, speaking to the people. And that is good news.

Election #5 The Great (Sort of) Debate

I spent part of yesterday afternoon/evening watching five men and one woman generally avoid answering the questions by demeaning their opponents while at the same time trying to extol their own personal or their party's virtues. The one possible exception to that was Elizabeth May who on at least the environmental issues tried to stay on task. Unfortunately, for the Green Party, every question is really about the environment and her repetitions of the theme got a bit tiring. The other people vying for people's votes were similarly singularly focused on repeating their mantras: "I am good, everyone else is therefore bad".

It may not have been entirely their fault. Six people forced to engage in a predetermined format that limited anyone's comments to less than two minutes is a recipe for something other than a useful debate. All too often, in spite of various moderators attempts to get the party leaders to not talk over each other, it felt as if much of the time there were at least two people talking. I would not have minded that if they were saying something useful, new or even entertaining. But in fact, it seemed as if they had all memorized a handful of key phrases and accusations and threw those comments into the "debate" whenever they felt so inclined to do so.

This meant when one leader said something that was wrong, there was little time for any other leader to dispute the claim. For example, Sheer at least twice said that Trudeau had fired an Indigenous member of his cabinet because she disagreed with him. While this statement may have some truth in it, Trudeau may have asked for Jody Wilson-Raybould resignation (it is not actually clear if she resigned or was asked to leave cabinet). The fact that she was from a First Nation had nothing to do with it. To suggest that her firing was proof that Trudeau was not committed to a level of reconciliation is, at best, disingenuous. The debate format left no time to respond. It could have been an interesting conversation if the two leaders had had time to address that question. As it was, it was just a smear attack.

There were numerous other comments throughout the two hours that had no other function than to smear the reputation of an individual or a policy. I suspect that because the leaders knew the format before starting, and in fact, their "people" had negotiated it, they knew that they would be free to cast aspersions upon each other with no consequences. How could that be called a debate? It was no better than what so frequently happens in the House of Commons.

Given the size of the country and the impracticality of getting all of the leaders in the same spot more than two or three times, this may be the best that we can do. But I do not think so. With all due respect to the leaders, there were two that did not need to be there. The Bloc are only running candidates in Quebec - they have little to contribute to a national debate until such time as they see themselves as equal partners with other provinces. If they insist on arguing that they are a separate nation and therefore have the right to negotiate differently the rest, the leader of the Bloc brings little of use to the debate. Similarly, as I have noted elsewhere, Maxime Bernier has no seats in the house and should not have been there. If only the leaders of the four parties who have candidates across the country and who have seat in the House of Commons, perhaps we would have seen a real debate about the issues that are important.

The alternative would be a series of half hour debates - one on one. It would take a few hours longer, but at least we would see some real discussion of the real issues. As the format is now - it is just an exercise in seeing who can be nastier and who can shout the loudest. If there was ever an argument against proportional representation - having even more people at the debate would be it.