Debate overload: Let's spice up the Toronto mayoral election

As of this writing, there are at least 40 mayoral debates scheduled before Toronto’s municipal election day on Oct. 27.

Forty. Four-zero. In non-mathematical terms: That’s a hell of a lot.

But, hey, I’ve got nothing against debates. At their best, they’re valuable because they let voters see their potential mayors talk about the issues in a setting that isn’t a tightly controlled campaign event.

The problem is that the debates involving the Toronto mayoral candidates thus far haven’t really done that. Through no real fault of the organizers, all the debates have been basically the same, with the five leading candidates stubbornly sticking to narrow debate strategy and talking points. It’s making for a lot of repetition.

Here’s how they normally go. Karen Stintz tries to awkwardly endear herself to the crowd. David Soknacki rattles off detailed policy his opponents seem to ignore. John Tory pivots on as many questions as he can to talk about his SmartTrack plan. And Olivia Chow mines her backstory, forever reassuring us that she does know the value of a dollar.

And Rob Ford? Well, he does his Rob Ford stuff.

It’s a format that needs to be livened up, especially with so many debates remaining.

But how to do that? I think I found part of the answer last week on the Danforth, at an event held by longshot mayoral candidate Ari Goldkind. Goldkind, a criminal defence lawyer, is running a firebrand campaign, pushing controversial policies such as police budget reforms and the return of vehicle registration tax.

At his event, held in a little place called Motorama, Goldkind turned his attention to an issue that doesn’t get much play: Accessibility. With the room full of people — some with canes, some with wheelchairs and some with guide dogs — Goldkind challenged his sign language interpreter to keep up as he talked about why accessibility matters and the things the city needs to do for those with disabilities.

It was unlike any campaign event I’ve seen so far — a different perspective on city politics. And, I think, a valuable one.

So to help solve our problem of dull debates, why not bring perspectives such as Goldkind’s to the debate stage? I know there’s a great reluctance to further crowd the mayoral field, but let’s not shortchange the value of putting someone on the debate stage that will talk about new and different issues — and, more importantly, someone who will push the leading candidates to talk about those issues too.

Last week, Goldkind demonstrated that he might be just the candidate to do that. With many debates to come and the format already feeling tired, he deserves a chance to show us what he’d add. Let’s give him a shot.