LEVINE BILL MANDATES 3 DEBATES VOTERS WOULD GET BETTER LOOK AT GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES.

Byline: STEVEN HARMON

MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO -- Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has a plan to transform California's apathetic masses into avid political consumers -- or at least better-informed ones.

The Van Nuys Democrat is pushing Assembly Bill 970, which would require three debates between the two major candidates for governor. It also would create a commission that would tinker with various formats to generate greater interest.

"It's the marketplace of ideas," said Levine, who also co-authored an assisted-suicide bill as well as measures to ban inefficient light bulbs and mandate better care of elephants.

"Will it spur interest? I hope so. Some will see all three, but they'll at least have more opportunities to see one. Those who do see all three will be more informed to make a decision."

But whether that comes to pass is subject to its own debate.

"Everyone's busy. They're all multitasking," said Arthur Asa Berger, an author on numerous books on the media and culture. "There are so many distractions and news is so bad, people are tuned out."

Debates will continue to be ineffective, Levine said, if incumbents are able to dictate the terms. Since the 1970s, no incumbent has agreed to more than two debates, and none has been unseated in that time.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger continued the tradition last year, even refining the art of limiting his exposure by holding the sole debate on a Saturday night -- typically the lowest night for viewership -- up against playoff baseball and college football games.

His campaign advisers also carefully set the rules, requiring both candidates to sit at a table with the interviewer, giving more the impression of a friendly conversation than a back-and-forth debate.

His Democratic challenger, Phil Angelides, complained -- to no avail -- that it signaled to voters that it wasn't a serious confrontation.

"I thought the (2006) gubernatorial debate was just an embarrassment," said Levine, a third-term lawmaker. "We have a democracy that depends on citizens making informed decisions. If we're not having full debates, citizens aren't able to make informed decisions."

Levine insists his bill isn't intended to give either party an advantage, saying that since the seat will be open, nobody knows who the nominees will be in 2010. He hopes his bill will be picked up in the spirit of reform as legislators consider bills on redistricting, term limits and campaign finance.

Three debates open up the possibilities, experts say, for more insight into the character, personality and philosophies of the candidates.

"It's important because it's one of the few opportunities where voters can decide for themselves," said Barbara O'Connor, director of Sacramento State's Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media. "They can watch someone answer questions without a script in front of them. They can frame how they feel about someone nonverbally. They view debates as more truthful because they know people can't mask discomfort in a live setting."

Ned Wigglesworth, policy advocate for California Common Cause, said moving to three debates would send a clear message that the gubernatorial race is critical and that the issues are not so easily condensed into 30-second sound bites.

"It would mean greater reflection among voters, greater investment in the elections," he said. "A lot of voters want easy, clear choices, information in easily digestible forms. A lot of people would rather have information spoon-fed to them rather than take the time to do the research on candidates. Having three debates during the week at night makes it easier for them to take part."

Voters apparently want debates, even if dismal ratings might suggest otherwise. Typically, according to surveys since 1998 by the Public Policy Institute of California, nearly three- fourths of voters say debates are somewhat or very important in deciding their vote.

But others see debates as a relic of a previous age, especially in this day of the ubiquitous remote control in the hands of an audience with an increasingly shortened attention span.

"We're a public that demands more connection with our political leaders," said San Francisco State professor Melissa Camacho, an expert on mass media and culture. "Debates don't do that, not in the way they're structured. There have been efforts to make them more palatable, like the town-hall forums that Bill Clinton started, but they really haven't been successful.

"The problem is that the only way you can get a lot of viewers' interest in politics is through entertainment."

Stan Statham, who is president and CEO of the California Broadcasters Association, also isn't sure voters would tune in to more debates. He also acknowledges that it would cost stations millions in advertising dollars to air more debates. Still, Statham is ready to support Levine's legislation.

"Anything that would inspire and/or force candidates to participate in debates, we'd love it," said Statham, a former Republican legislator who moderated the 2006 debate. "The only problem is that by the second and third debates, people are watching the fifth re-runs of 'M*A*S*H.' They've made up their minds."

sharmon(at)cc.times

[phone]