The best way to fix the leaders debate is to end it

It's the 21st Century. Voters deserve better than a pointless TV anachronism.

The single, solitary certainty understood by even the most casual observer ahead of every leaders debate in every Canadian election at every level of government, is this: the format will suck.

T’was always thus. Always will be.

That said, there is one thing we can do to fix the problem. To fix the format. To improve the moderation. To force the leaders to be more honest, more forthcoming. To provide a better service to voters. It’s a simple fix. It’s easy to implement:

End the leaders debates. Just stop doing them.

What’s the purpose of the debate anyway?

Is it to provide viewers – aka voters – with quality first-hand information directly from the leaders themselves, about how they’ll govern if elected? If so, has there ever been a leaders debate that accomplished this? No.

At best, the debate provides the leaders with an opportunity to regurgitate their focus-group tested talking points. Repeatedly. At worst, the leaders have little time to do even that – their messages are truncated and trampled, overwritten by objection and chortle. No one learns much about policy proposals in the debate.

Is it to let the voters see how the leaders perform under pressure? To test their mettle, as it were, in the mini-crisis that is a raging public argument?

If so, the debate fails spectacularly. Sure, when the moderator loses control and the debate devolves into a screaming match, we see colour rise to the cheeks of the leaders (especially incumbents who are always the target of every challenger on stage) but does that really show us how they’ll perform in the real world? No.

A TV debate, in particular, is riven with performative formatics: “Let’s go now to Shelley standing by in Donovan’s pub to get a question from an average citizen…” “Here’s Wanda B. Famous from BigTV to ask a pointed, withering question that will take two minutes and you’ll each have 10 seconds to answer…” “Over to Don who’s been watching the Audience Response-O-Meter…” “Back to you in the studio, Peter to ask another entirely predictable question…”

These formatic elements are injected into the debate to entertain us and keep our attention in a world where we’re used to consuming information in 20-second chunks. As a result, there is never any circumstance where the leaders are on the hot-seat for more than 90 seconds at a stretch. Even an idiot can smile politely for 90 seconds until the camera must move on to its next target or lose audience interest.

Is it to provide cheap entertainment?

If so, the debate fails again. First, it’s not cheap. Second, it’s not that entertaining. During this year’s English language debate, audiences had the option of watching Canadian teenage tennis phenom Leylah Fernandez win her US Open semi-final match or the Blue Jays trounce the Yankees. Far more entertaining.

Perhaps, the debate exists solely to provide fodder for home or pub-based drinking games: do a shot of (preferably Chinese) vodka each time Justin Trudeau says “moving forward” – or a half-pint of local small-batch beer whenever Erin O’Toole vows to “secure” something. If so, OK. You got me: the debate does this very well.

But, surely, there’s a better way.

Who wants a leaders debate anyway?

The candidates certainly do not. It’s a colossal waste of their time. You may think the debate provides leaders with an unbeatable free opportunity to reach a national audience with their message. But, on all counts, it fails.

The debate is not “free” for the candidates – it consumes an enormous amount of time that could be spent doing something more productive like, say, campaigning or fundraising. Sure, the debate show is just two hours long – on air. But, it consumes days of the candidates’ time to prepare. Most serious candidates have entire teams of staff dedicated to preparing for the debate – and little else – for almost the entire campaign. Most of those staff have to be paid. The debate is phenomenally expensive in campaign time and money.

Leaders would be better-served campaigning directly with voters. In a two-hour debate, they may get to speak unimpeded to an ever-changing audience for as much as four or five minutes. People tune in and out; few viewers see all five minutes. Social media, Youtube videos, media interviews and paid advertising are all far more effective – and less expensive – options. If people are, at best, going to see you for just five minutes, why not just post a video?

Leaders could better spend two hours doing six fundraising events over a few days that would inject hundreds of thousands of dollars into their campaign coffers – to pay for all the campaigning they should be doing instead of prepping for a pointless debate. That money could buy a lot of TikTok videos.

The media love them. Canada’s news media (of which I am part) are oftentimes three things: lazy, unimaginative and poor. This is all too apparent in most election coverage. They (we) love to talk about two predictable election standbys: horse race polls and the debate. Why is that? Well, they’re cheap and easy.

The debate provides a focal point for as much as 1/4 of election coverage. A Canadian election campaign is typically six weeks long. For two weeks before the debate we can talk about how the debate will change things. After the debate we can spend another two weeks talking about how the debate didn’t change anything. That’s four weeks of cheap, easy content in the can. Now, we have to come up with only two more weeks of content: who are the leaders, what did they do today, where are they in the polls, why are the poll numbers changing, what did Leader A say about the allegations made against her by Leader B? And… we’re done. Election night! Wrap.

The voters would like to love the debate. But, they don’t. Most Canadian voters do not watch the debate – it’s too boring. Instead, they’ll consume snippets of news in the days following the debate from media sources they trust and rely upon to tell them what happened. Most of those “highlights” will be focused on the gotcha smears that are fun to watch, but not particularly informative about policy or platforms.

The debate typically happens in the last two weeks of the campaign when many voters have already made up their minds. In fact, many may have already voted (I did) before the debate even begins. Decided voters who watch the debate – or, more often, the coverage after the debate – are usually looking for reassurance they made the right choice. They invariably find it.

Undecided voters watching the debate are ill-served by the process for all the reasons I’ve outlined above. Those looking for information about the policies or platforms of the leaders are, instead, served up a swish-pan diet of mistaken answers, half-explanations, outrageous if ineffectual smears, bad impressions or no impressions at all. If they hoped for valid, useful information, they will invariably find their time would have been better used scanning the leaders’ websites and reading their literature. They certainly won’t find anything in a debate more substantive or credible than that.

It’s the 21st Century. We can do better.

The only valid intention behind the leaders debate should be: to inform voters. If we agree on that, there’s a better way to do this than a pointless shouting match we all agree fails to inform anyone.

The best way to fix the leaders debate is to end the leaders debate.

What do do instead? Well, start with this.

Replace the debate with a one-on-one leader interview

There are many journalists, authors and others in Canada who are exceptional interviewers. Pick one to interview each leader and ask thoughtful, deep questions, probe for the details and don’t let the leader dodge or offer shallow talking points. Push them to explain. Give them time to answer – as long as it takes. Either they answer – or we can all see they have no answer.

In this format, leaders could fully explain their ideas – and be held accountable for their answers.

We don’t need a parade of journalists and average Joe Citizens asking questions. None of the questions ever asked by journalists or citizens have ever been surprising. All of them could have been much better asked by a single, skilled interviewer.

We don’t need opposition leaders lobbing hand grenades. Not one of the “gotcha” stings or casual smears ever mouthed by an opponent on a debate stage has ever been unanticipated. A singled, skilled interviewer could put these allegations to the leader in a long-form interview and actually get an answer.

The interview should be about an hour long. One hour of detailed, in-depth discussion should be enough to cover all the information voters require. Sixty minutes is a long time when it’s just you and the camera. If the interview goes over or under, who cares? Because this interview won’t be consumed on live TV.

The interview should be streamed online. In every format. So people can watch them when, where and how they choose to do so. Voters can review them at their leisure. Rewind, rewatch, fast forward to the part that interests them. Leaders can provide links to their websites to make it easier for viewers to get more – and updated – information.

If one or more TV networks want to air them, they should be free to do so. But, they don’t all need to air them at the same time – or in the same order. Let them decide.

Who pays for this?

First, we should let the so-far-entirely-unimpressive “non partisan” Leaders Debates Commission organize the interviews and host them online. Surely they can do this. Complete all the interviews by the midpoint of the campaign and release them simultaneously on the Commission website (does it have one?) and on every popular social media platform. Set a deadline and hold to it. If one leader plays hard to get, screw him. Post the interviews on the deadline with or without him.

The costs won’t be high. An office, lighting, professional videographer, editor and an interviewer. Candidates can be responsible for their own makeup. No need for TelePrompTers or note stands. Just a pair of comfortable chairs.

Make the campaigns pay the cost. If they want to participate, they pay the costs. It’s part of their communication effort. If they choose not to participate, don’t force them. Their choice will speak volumes.

Let everyone participate. If they pay the fee, let any party leader do an interview. No more controversy over which party leaders deserve to be on the debate stage. Eliminate the stage. Let all comers participate.

Let voters decide who they’re interested in watching – or watch no one at all.

It’s 2021 – let this be the last election in Canada with a pointless leaders debate. It’s time to move on.