Televised election debates are important — but they could be better

This is an excerpt from Minority Report, a weekly newsletter on federal politics. If you haven't subscribed yet, you can do that by clicking here.

Providing space for good, healthy political debate on a national stage seems particularly important right now. But we've seen how easily attempts to do so can go astray, as evidenced this week by a gimmicky Conservative leadership debate and as explained at length in a new report by the federal Leaders' Debate Commission.

The Debate Commission, created as an independent federal body by the Liberal government in 2018, was born out of concern that the traditional, nationally broadcast election debates of years past were no longer guaranteed. 

In 2015, Stephen Harper had upended the traditional system by going around the consortium of broadcast networks (including the CBC) to participate in debates staged by other institutions. Given that Harper was the incumbent, the other party leaders felt compelled to follow him. The result might have been more variety, but Harper's gambit demonstrated how the debate calendar could be shaped by political interests. Without the involvement of the major networks, viewership also suffered.

With the Commission taking the lead for the 2019 election, the main English-language debate was given to a consortium of the major television networks (including the CBC) and watched by 14.2 million Canadians. By comparison, the most-watched debate in 2015, which was staged by Maclean's (where this writer was employed at the time), was viewed by 4.3 million people.

During last year's campaign, viewership was down to 10.3 million – which might reflect a general "lack of interest" in last fall's election, the Commission speculated in the post-mortem report it released this week. 

But the bigger concern was how last year's debates were conducted.

"There is widespread agreement that the 2021 debates did not deliver as well as they should have on informing voters about parties' policies," the Commission's report acknowledged.

"Stakeholders we consulted and analysis that was published criticised the format as being cluttered, restrictive and not allowing enough time for leaders to express themselves or to engage in meaningful exchanges. The consensus was that there were too many journalists on stage. Moreover, the line of questioning from the moderator and journalists limited the ability of leaders to expound on their positions."

The Commission doesn't just relay the bad reviews – it also quantifies the harried feeling of the 2021 debates. In the span of two hours, the Commission found, there were 45 questions put to the party leaders in 2021. By comparison, just eight questions were posed during the debate in 2008. 

WATCH | Conservative Leadership Candidates spar in first and only official English debate:

Journalists naturally want to hold political leaders to account and demand clarity and honesty. Those are valuable impulses – and the campaign's biggest stage offers a tempting moment to pursue those things.

In recent years, media outlets have also put increased emphasis on fact-checking and calling out lies and misinformation and that might only add to the urge to tightly control the debate stage.

But the unique value of a nationally televised leaders' debate is the "debate" part.