Across the country this election cycle, a quiet but consequential retreat is under way: a slight majority of U.S. Senate races have no debates scheduled, according to a Washington Post Opinion analysis. The trend marks a shift away from unscripted public forums in which candidates defend their records and answer voters’ questions — a change that civic leaders and local journalists say has tangible effects for communities here in Washington.
Debates in retreat
National attention in recent weeks has focused on high-profile, combustible exchanges in a few battleground states. Those spectacles obscure a broader pattern: many Senate contests, including several that will determine control of the chamber, are declining the sort of public debate that historically has been a key source of voter information.
In some races, candidates who are strongly favored by polls or party infrastructure simply do not agree to joint forums. In others, challengers find invitations ignored or declined. The Post analysis lists numerous “uncompetitive” Senate races without debates this year — from Alabama to New Mexico — underscoring how the practice has become widespread across regions and party lines.
Historical context and the civic cost
The retreat from debates contrasts with an era when senators used extended public argument to shape national debate. The analysis cites 1858, when Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas met seven times in a series of debates that framed the moral and legal questions of the day. While the immediate outcomes of those contests varied, the exchanges themselves are often credited with elevating public understanding of urgent issues.
When candidates avoid unscripted settings, voters lose a mechanism for assessing how they think on their feet and how they might operate in the chamber. The Washington Post argues that this pattern stifles the public’s access to information necessary to cast informed votes — a point with direct relevance for Washington state, where a well-informed electorate has historically driven policy debates on climate, education and transportation.
Local implications
For civic organizations and local media in Washington, the decline in scheduled Senate debates presents operational and democratic challenges. Public-radio stations, nonprofit civic groups and county election offices have long relied on debates and candidate forums as convening moments to surface contrasts on policy and record. Without those events, the burden falls to smaller outlets and organizations to create opportunities for scrutiny.
That burden is not trivial. Organizing neutral, well-moderated debates requires outreach to campaigns, neutral moderators, logistical planning and often funding — resources that many local organizations say are strained. The absence of debates also shifts more influence to paid advertising and controlled messaging, formats that are less likely to illuminate differences in judgment and temperament.
What candidates and voters can do
- Media outlets and civic groups can continue to press for debates and public forums, making invitations public and transparent.
- Voters should seek multiple sources of information: candidate questionnaires, local reporting, public-record reviews and organized town halls.
- Local newsrooms should prioritize recordings and transcripts of candidate appearances so those who cannot attend can review substantive exchanges.
Some candidates who face criticism for skipping multisided forums still accept certain invitations. As one campaign representative noted in coverage of the national trend, a challenger who felt snubbed said the front-runner had expressed willingness to debate “anytime and anywhere.”
“Anytime and anywhere.”
Why debates matter — at a glance
| Benefit | Effect for voters |
|---|---|
| Unscripted answers | Show how candidates reason under pressure |
| Direct contrast | Reveal policy differences and priorities |
| Public accountability | Allows follow-up from journalists and civic groups |
Declining debate participation is not merely an abstract concern. In Washington state, where voters have relied on robust civic engagement to move major policy initiatives — from cap-and-trade rules to sound-transit expansions — fewer public debates reduce opportunities for voters to calibrate their choices against candidates’ stated commitments.
For journalists and civic organizations, the trend underscores the need for inventive approaches to voter information: more candidate interviews, expanded Q&A events, and rigorous fact-checking of claims made in paid advertising. For voters, the imperative is to look beyond campaign messaging and seek forums that test candidates’ positions in real time.
As the midterm season accelerates, the absence of debates in a majority of Senate contests is a reminder that democratic accountability is not automatic. It must be cultivated — by candidates willing to answer public questions, by media willing to host and press for exchanges, and by citizens who insist on access to the information necessary to vote with understanding.
