No Energy Crisis Debate? A Last Minute Redistricting Amendment? Virginians Deserved Better Before Today’s Vote

With election day now upon us, Virginia voters were short-changed this election cycle while Democracy is literally being threatened! 

Virginians were limited to one, short, poorly controlled debate for Governor, one equally short, but slightly more substantive debate for Attorney General, and zero debates for Lt. Governor – unless, of course, you count the surreal spectacle of Republican nominee John Reid debating an AI version of Democrat Ghazala Hashmi after she refused over ten invitations to appear on stage with him.

Worse yet, Virginia’s extended, 45-day early voting rules robbed a half million voters of having even these two debates inform their vote as both were held well after early voting had already begun and votes were already cast. Compounding the impact of this debate failure, is that the Democrats, just one week before the election, and after the two inadequate debates were over, called back their members to vote on an amendment to the state constitution to literally overthrow the will of Virginians who voted in 2020 in favor of a bipartisan commission to draw congressional maps. Democrats voted to ignore voters and return the Commonwealth’s redistricting process to the hands of a partisan map drawing cabal.

Such a monumental decision should have been a central topic of debate for candidates of all three of the Commonwealth’s statewide offices. More importantly, voters should have had more time to hear from their State Delegates on this issue as they will have the most say over the future of this troubling amendment.

Debates are revealing moments when candidates have to answer unscripted questions, defend their records, and show they can think on their feet. Really, they are the “interview process” necessary to provide voters the necessary insights into the candidate’s preparedness to lead the Commonwealth. 

The debate environment can reveal a candidate’s true feelings on issues that are easily hidden in ads and public appearances. It is arguable that all three current Republican statewide elected officials owe their victories four years ago to the final gubernatorial debate between Glenn Youngkin and Terry McAuliffe, where McAuliffe made the now-infamous remark: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

That unscripted line became a rallying cry for Youngkin, helping crystallize education as the defining issue of the campaign, changing the trajectory of the race and erasing McAuliffe’s double-digit lead. It was a glimpse into the philosophy of McAuliff’s view that schools, not parents, had the final authority over children. This revealing line led to a Republican sweep, a sweep that was completely unexpected a week before the election.

That moment showed how powerful debates can be when candidates speak candidly and voters see unscripted authenticity. But it also showed how dangerous unfiltered moments can be for campaigns more focused on message control than public engagement. Because of that, Virginia’s political class seems to have drawn the wrong lesson: avoid debates to avoid risk.

To see how elections can work, one need only look north. New Jersey and New York have shown how democracy should work. 

New Jersey had two official gubernatorial debates and a lieutenant governor debate, after a slate of primary debates. The debates featured live moderators, extended Q&A segments, and full participation by major contenders, giving voters a clear-eyed chance to judge how candidates present themselves and their policies under pressure. More importantly for voters, candidates sparred on budget and tax policy, energy and utility reliability (including a discussion on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), education, public transit, health-care coverage and state-worker benefits, immigration, cannabis-regulation policy, and more.  The debates provided real, substantive engagement on dozens of topics rather than rehearsed soundbites.

New York City’s mayoral race featured four major debates, two during the Democratic primary and two in the general election. Their format also encouraged substantive policy discussions, with moderators asking direct follow-up questions, and with the ability of candidates to question one another, ensuring live interaction rather than canned responses. The breadth of topics was also impressive: from affordability, housing, public safety, transit and transportation infrastructure, immigration enforcement and federal-local relations, even international and union issues. In short, New York City voters were offered not a spectacle, but an opportunity to engage with serious policy choices and leadership questions.

In short, New Jersey voters watched Mikie Sherrill and Jack Ciattarelli spar over substantive policy and ethical issues, while New Yorkers watched Mamdani, Cuomo, and Sliwa exchange barbs over dozens of policy differences.  Virginians, however, were left with campaign commercials, polished social-media clips, and political theater –without the substance that such debates bring. The sad truth is that both New Jersey and New York City have public campaign funding programs that force candidates to participate in these important debates in order to get funded. While the Thomas Jefferson Institute has historically opposed public campaign funding and campaign finance restrictions, it may be time to consider other measures to force or encourage candidates to face their opponents in public debate to give voters the information they need to make informed decisions. At a minimum, voters should punish candidates who refuse to debate!

Voters deserved to hear the candidates debate how to solve Virginia’s looming energy shortfall, to spar over how to handle the continued underperformance of our public schools, to battle over the unionization of our public employees – and certainly, to debate the wisdom of re-politicizing the drawing of Virginia’s Congressional map against the clear will of the voters. 

This isn’t about partisanship; both sides have ducked debates when it suits them. But democracy isn’t about minimizing risk, it’s about maximizing accountability and increasing transparency.

The Youngkin–McAuliffe debate proved that debates can move elections. The AI “debate” proved what happens when they disappear. The early-ballot timing shows how voters are deprived of side-by-side scrutiny when the game’s already a quarter-over. The New Jersey and New York systems prove that debates can work.

As Virginia, the birthplace of American democracy, heads to the polls today, voters have been robbed of seeing the raw, unfiltered beliefs of those from whom they must choose. With so much at stake, today’s outcome, regardless of who wins, will feel less earned and more scripted.  

Derrick Max is the President & CEO of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy and may be reached at dmax@thomasjeffersoninst.org.