I attended the Jan. 28 Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) debate as an undecided voter ready to learn more about the parties and candidates involved in the election.
I expected to learn some issues that either party is willing to tackle, and more importantly, the character of each candidate. I also assumed that the debate would have some attacks, but with moderation would be somewhat civil. To my shock and displeasure, what I got that day was a travesty and a shameful mockery of a debate.
For those of you who didn’t attend the debate, let me put this entire situation into context.
This year’s debate format allowed for students to attend and “voice” their opinion. While in theory this seems great, in reality it was a mess and a platform for pandering and yelling to ensue.
Literally, “supporters” of either party yelled and cheered when their candidate made a comment, like sheep, never missing a cue. This created a hostile environment in which candidates could not express themselves without cheering erupting.
As an undecided voter this environment was toxic because I could barely understand candidates’ answers and talking points. It was simply impossible to hear each candidate’s promises and plans for the future.
The problem with these “supporters” became magnified during the few quieter moments of the debate, when I actually could understand what the candidates were saying. During these moments, I discovered that the candidates were pandering to their followers.
That’s right — pandering and refusing to make legitimate points.
This pandering got so bad, that one presidential candidate (who will remain unnamed) stood on a chair, over top of his disciples, and yelled fluff and jargon into a mic, trying to get a reaction from his flapping-mouthed followers. To his glee, his followers didn’t disappoint and jumped out of their seats, cheering him on.
This pandering was awful.
In fact, the entire debate was awful.
I understand CUSA is trying to improve the effectiveness of the debate, and I applaud their effort, but this debate format simply did not work. CUSA needs to remove the audience or enforce a no-talking policy.
If CUSA doesn’t act, more students may end up like me and attend the debate eager to learn about who to vote for, but leave apathetic, angry, and contemplating whether to vote at all.
— Jacob Sheldon
third-year communications
