Opinion | Now that we have a real mayoral race in Minneapolis, how about a real debate?

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Now that it’s clear Minneapolis will have a true mayoral contest this year, I have a radical proposal for our civic city. What if sometime in the next three months we have a serious, open, well-moderated debate between the leading candidates?

You may be thinking, “Every organization with an acronym in its name has a candidate forum.” True, there are lots of times when all the candidates in a given race are on stage together and asked to respond to polite prompts about issues. Yet most of these affairs are structured to encourage candidates to expel excessive amounts of wind, rather than to shed light on their positions.

Full disclosure: I have moderated candidate debates ranging from city council to gubernatorial contests. I organized my first during the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral contest, in part out of frustration with how most forums were run.

The typical forum seats all candidates side by side facing the audience. A moderator lobs a predictable question, making clear all the candidates will have equal time to respond. Participants can answer however they want, regardless of whether they actually address the question or not.

The moderator, enfeebled by a set of rules designed to ensure all the candidates would agree to participate, has little to do beyond noting when a speaker has expended their time. Moderators are typically discouraged from pointing out when a candidate has chosen to filibuster rather than answer a question. Few follow up for specifics on an answer. There’s almost never an invitation for the other candidates to respond with how they see things differently.

“What would be your top priority if elected?”

“I believe we should have an economy that works for everyone.”

“We need to ensure everybody feels safe in their neighborhoods.”

“I will work to strengthen our community.”

“Thank you … next question.”

I believe neutering the role of moderator originated with storied civic organizations that became obsessed with measurable metrics of “fairness.” Anyone with a stopwatch can ensure 90 second intervals are evenly dolled out between speakers. It is more difficult to listen for whether that person has actually answered the question posed. It is an art to politely but directly invite the candidate to actually answer, “Is that a yes or a no?” Even more nuance and understanding is required to push for specificity on the bold promises that are commonplace in politics.

“How, with the powers and limitations of the office you are seeking, would you accomplish that?”

“In what specific ways would your plans and priorities differ from your opponents’?”

I believe that candidates would also prefer substantive, thoughtful debates on the issues, regardless of where they fall on the ideological spectrum. Any candidate who truly believes in their plans and platform would relish the opportunity to speak directly to the issues they care about with passion and specificity.

At the end of the day, opportunities to hear from candidates are vital to democracy. Voters should demand the organizers of debates and forums have guidelines that empower moderators to press candidates for answers and specifics. Our first priority should be widening voters’ scope of understanding of the choice before them. That requires someone to ask good questions and hold speakers accountable.