Yvette Linders is happy with what she sees in the debates in the run-up to this year's elections. More one-on-one dialogues, and smaller gatherings around TV tables. “The debates are becoming more substantive, which is a good development after the earlier debates in which a great many politicians were asked to respond to things like yes-no statements. Not all ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are equal. “Such debates don't help voters to figure out the underlying reasons behind a politician's ‘yes’ or ‘no’. And these reasons can vary greatly. With yes-no alone, all nuance is lost. There is not much information to be found there; you might as well fill in the vote compass.”
More so than in past elections, parties are taking matters into their own hands, as witnessed by Omtzigt and Timmermans publishing their debate on YouTube. “The reasoning goes: a debate between the two of us is good because we are fishing in the same voter pool, and in TV debates the selection is based on the polls, regardless of political colour.” That is not necessarily the best approach, says Linders. “Voters who are dissatisfied with ‘old-guard’ politics might hesitate between Omtzigt's NSC, BBB, and Forum voor Democratie. If you get one of those parties to debate with the more traditional parties, it is not very informative for those voters. For that group, a debate that brings together these four parties is much more relevant.”
Turnout figures
Will disgruntled voters go to the polls? Yvette Linders specialises in tracking the online platforms where disaffected voters congregate: the climate deniers, the self-appointed virus deniers. “I also follow the autonomists, the people who send back tax returns because they do not recognise the Dutch government. System deniers are increasingly making themselves heard, and sometimes even call for people to refuse to join the system and therefore not to vote. I am curious to see how this translates into turnout figures.”
It makes relatively little sense in debates to serve this group of genuine dropouts. “You will not reach people who believe in conspiracies and prefer to spread disinformation with debates, especially not on public broadcasting channels.” Let alone with increasingly substantive debates. As a downside to greater depth, Linders points to the drop-off of voters who prefer to be served by sound-bites and one-liners. “Caroline van der Plas is very good at that, but in a debate with a dossier expert like Omtzigt, you can see her struggling.”
Not just one-liners
The current debate culture is moving towards more elitism, says Linders. The group that prefers to communicate in more superficial soundbites has lost out. Is this a reason for concern? “No, surely not; voters are entitled to information about how parties arrive at their choices. And ultimately, debates in the House of Representatives are also about the content. A party that only submits one-liner motions will not be as effective.”
This is Part 6 in a series of weekly articles published in the run-up to the elections for the House of Representatives on 22 November. Each instalment features new commentary from a researcher at Radboud University.