A Modest Proposal (for the debates)

The two debates scheduled for #elxn41 have been concluded, though we still have 18 days to go. It struck me the other night that we can do better.

Putting aside all of the problems with "the consortium" (is it supposed to sound so nefarious?) and the way the debates are actually structured in terms of questions and topics, isn't it time we looked at the number of debates that are held and the location of the debates?

On Tuesday night, as the English language debate started in Ottawa it was 4:00 in the afternoon in Vancouver! Think about that for a moment. We hear so much about the growing importance of British Columbia, and the need for parties to make real gains in the province and break the typical 3-way split.

So what do we do? We hold the debate - one of only 2 times to see the Leaders engage with one another and lay out their vision for the country - while most people are at work or on a commute. It was not much better for Albertans, as the debate kicked off at 5:00 pm there (though Alberta is far from being a battleground given Conservative hegemony).

With that in mind, a proposal for next time:

- A minimum of three debates (two in English and one in French)
- One English debate to be held in Ontario, the other in British Columbia
- Debates are scheduled over three successive weeks; no more of this 24-48 hour turnaround

I would also propose the following, which is perhaps more controversial.

The first say 75 minutes or so would feature only the Leaders of the two largest parties - barring the unforeseen the Conservatives and the Liberals. These are the only two Leaders with any real chance of becoming Prime Minister. Let's hear from them about their respective visions for the country, and let them make their pitch to lead.

For the remaining 45 minutes the Leaders of the other main parties would be invited to participate. This would include those with representation in the House of Commons at dissolution (in the current scenario the NDP and the Bloc), but also those with significant levels of national support (the Greens in this scenario).

I know that for many (read: the NDP) this would not be acceptable. However, whether we like it or not Canadians are being presented with a choice between two prospective Prime Ministers. I for one want to hear them debate one another.

If this has to come at the expense of parties which may hold the balance of power, so be it. It's a trade-off/sacrifice I am prepared to make.

Finally, I would like to see the moderator(s) more engaged. There should be an opportunity for them to call the Leaders out on inconsistencies (we see enough of these through the fact checking and reality checks in play), personal attacks, etc. They should be more than timekeepers.

What are the odds of any of this happening? Likely pretty slim. Networks are being asked to give up air time for these debates and will therefore want to continue to control the structure. Parties will also favour the conservative approach currently used - it's safer.

I just think we deserve a better opportunity to have the choice presented and argued before us. What about you?

Democracy...it's more than an inconvenience

The first of the debates scheduled for #elxn41 concluded last night, and this morning the papers, blogs and twittersphere are filled with commentary, reaction, spin and pronouncements about winners and losers.

Like many, I watched the debate and did not see anything that I thought would move a sizable number of votes one way or the other. Bases were shored up, though I am not sure much more occurred.

With this in mind, I opted against using today's post to prepare my own summary and instead want to focus on one of the discussion points that struck me.

Throughout the debate when topics such as Parliament, coalitions and the contempt finding were discussed, Mr. Harper conveyed what to me was essentially a tone of irritation. It was a consistent non-acceptance of the views expressed by the majority of the House of Commons.

"I don't accept these truths" was one of the lines used by Mr. Harper in response to points raised about the contempt finding. Not, "I don't agree" or "we have different views". "I don't accept."

Democracy is more than an inconvenience. It should not be portrayed as an irritant, or something that gets in your way. Yet this is basically what Mr. Harper was saying.

Democracy takes work and demands compromise. To function properly it requires information and transparency - they are like oxygen. Within our system of government the notions of accountability and responsibility are supposed to be paramount.

These principles are not meant to be a high standard we hope our leaders attain; they should be the bare minimum we accept from the people we elect to make decisions on our behalf, to spend our money, to commit our troops, to be stewards of the public trust, and to govern us.

I did not hear that last night from Mr. Harper. I heard irritation and a sense of being inconvenienced. I heard that he wants a majority so he doesn't have to be bothered or distracted from governing how he wants to govern.

He wants to do his job - fine. But he did not accept that the debate, dialogue and compromise so sorely lacking from our political process is a fundamental part of his job.

These are not "nice to haves", and are not impediments to managing an economy or considering how to provide sustainable health care. On the contrary, they are pre-requisites to governing.

I hope that this theme is picked up tonight in the second debate and in the commentary that follows over the remainder of the campaign, though I am not sure.

In expressing his views the way he did, Mr. Harper is counting on possible election-fatigue as being a factor for voters. He is also counting on voters seeing these things as "Ottawa issues" and not mainstreet issues.

Is he right? What are you prepared to accept?