Are election debates a waste of time?

Debate season is upon us. With elections on both sides of the border, television viewers and election junkies have been treated to a smorgasbord of debate programming. Presidential and vice presidential debates on the US networks, back-to-back Canadian leaders debates in both official languages, and even an all candidates debate here at Fanshawe College. With the media attention surrounding these debates, sceptics are prompted to inquire about their utility. Do voters care? Critics argue that debates serve no purpose other than providing fodder for Tina Fey and her SNL counterparts. The question is worth exploring: do debates matter?

Televised leaders debates have been a staple of North American elections since the dawn of television. Canadian elections have included a debate nearly every election since 1968. But what debates generate in interest, they often lack in substance.

Cynics rightfully point to the scripted nature of debates. Candidates come armed with talking points and briefing books that outline a canned response for every conceivable question. At the heart of each response is a deliberate and focus-grouped message that is repeated ad nauseam. Just listen for the word ‘leadership' from any conservative candidate, or see how long it takes Jack Layton to mention the 'kitchen table' or `working families'. These responses offer little new information for voters.

Despite their apparent cosmetic nature, debates continue to persist and evidence suggests that debates do matter to voters. Roughly 80 per cent of Canadian voters make up their mind during the course of the election campaign. Debates can be instrumental in their decision. This is a noticeable departure from American politics where voters must indicate their partisan affiliation when registering to vote. It is also typically displayed proudly on their bumper stickers, and in many cases it is inherited from generations gone by. Canadian voters are much more fickle.

Canadian elections are also unique for their shift in voting preference from one election to the next. This has earned Canadian voters the nickname of `flexible partisans.` They have a loose party attachment that persists over time, but they will not hesitate to deviate periodically. Voters will be guided by issues, as in the free trade election of 1988, or by leadership, as is the case with the current campaign.

For political parties, leader's debates are a red letter day during the campaign period. There is often a noticeable shift in public opinion as a result of a candidate's debate performance. Brian Mulroney's berating of John Turner is one memorable example. The 2008 version also seems to have boosted the fortunes of Stéphane Dion, and reeled Stephen Harper back into the pack.

As long as people continue to watch, debates will be held. In an era of telegenic leaders and eight second sound bites, debates are a perfect forum for parties to get their message out. Whether the message resonates with voters or not is another story. Just ask Sarah Palin.

Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.