The September 9th leadership debate provided the first formal opportunity for candidates to speak not only to those in attendance, but through the media, to the entire province. Until now candidates have been putting their teams together, launching websites and doing individual media interviews. A few panel discussions have been held but none included all 7 candidates.

The current NDP leadership race is very different from the 2001 battle. At that time, campaigns pulled the vote for most delegate selection meetings and in each constituency they ran slates of delegates who would support them at convention. This time many of the members would react negatively to slate politics, which is good because none of the candidates has the organization and support to run that kind of campaign. It could be that a substantial number, maybe even a majority of delegates will go to the November 21st convention without being committed to any candidate. The campaign as well as the convention speeches will influence the vote.

The formal debates are high risk activities because one foolish comment can be repeated endlessly in the media with the consequence of dashing all future hopes. Look at the impression Stephen Harper made with his allegations about the courts and same sex marriages. He's a laughing stock (or should that be that he's just like Stock?). A candidate runs the risk of destroying political opportunities that may have taken years to create. Candidates must find ways to differentiate themselves; it calls for great skill to carve out unique, popular positions without erring on the side of foolish blunders.

Some candidates may not create the opportunity to be crystal clear on all issues. "One member one vote" (OMOV), for instance, is a concept that will come up throughout the 12 stop leadership tour. That sounds like a simple and popular idea, but it hides a lot of controversy. The November convention will be a delegated convention. Every member will have the opportunity to participate in electing the new leader, but most will only be able to do so by voting at their local constituency meeting for the delegates that will attend from that constituency. OMOV refers to actually having each member vote for a leader, either by phone, mail or Internet. Several political parties, including the federal NDP have gone to such systems but the federal NDP system is really "One member three quarters of a vote" because union representation is still guaranteed 25% of the total vote. When some candidates say they favor OMOV they mean going to the model used by the federal party while others mean eliminating automatic union delegates and allowing only individual members to vote. You can see how reference can be made to one of these concepts as OMOV without everyone understanding precisely what is being advocated. It will be interesting to see whether the candidates attempt to made their positions on such issues clear, or whether they leave room for ambiguity.

"One member one vote" involves a debate over the party's constitution, but there are many other issues involving public policy that provide the opportunities for clarification. With that clarity goes the possibility of big wins or loses. That's why the 12 debates in the official leadership tour deserve careful attention. Many members won't be able to attend any of the debates and will depend on what candidates publish through their websites and pamphlets, and what the media choose to report in order to make up their mind. The campaign is about to attract attention.