Eighteen of this year’s 35 Senate races and 12 of 36 gubernatorial races have no debate between the major-party candidates, CBS News reports. Strategists describe a familiar calculation: a candidate may gain little from an evening of answers and lose plenty from one disastrous clip.

From the campaign’s perspective, this makes sense.

Unfortunately, I do not live inside a campaign. I live in the place the successful campaign gets to govern.

This distinction appears to have become terribly inconvenient. The candidate wants to avoid a mistake. The voter wants to know whether the candidate is one. A debate could help settle the matter, which is why everyone has decided to be very careful about holding it.

We have built a hiring process in which the applicant’s professional advisers recommend not attending the interview because the employer might notice something.

Would this work anywhere else? Could I apply to fly an airliner and explain that a simulator session offers very little upside for my brand? My prepared statement about landing is excellent. The aircraft imagery tested beautifully. I don’t see why we need to introduce a runway into this.

In Texas, Democrat James Talarico has repeatedly sought a debate with Republican Ken Paxton, even offering Fox News as the venue. Talarico eventually appeared alone at a CNN town hall.

That is quite a concession. Pick the room. Pick the network. Please bring one human opponent. We are gradually negotiating a debate down to the technical requirements for an argument in a parking lot.

The Daily Heckler: five or six selected stories.
Political satire for your morning inbox.

And this is not exclusively a Republican retreat. Arizona Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs declined to debate Andy Biggs, arguing that direct interactions with residents work better than a stage built for soundbites and theater.

There is plenty of theater. Nobody who has watched a candidate turn a question about drainage into a rehearsed accusation about the collapse of civilization needs that explained.

But, but—if the stage is theatrical, could the elected adults try answering the fucking question? Before we abandon the whole format, has anyone considered declining to perform the stupid part?

Tommy Tuberville, running for Alabama governor, argued that there was nothing to debate because people already know where Democrats and conservative Republicans stand. His opponent, Doug Jones, held an event playing clips of him instead.

Great. Democracy has reached the stage where one applicant appears in person and the other is assembled from previously available footage. Perhaps next cycle we can replace the whole election with a television on a luggage cart and let voters wheel it toward the policy they prefer.

I know. A viral mistake can swallow a serious discussion. Campaigns do not control what gets clipped, and a debate is no guarantee of enlightenment. Sometimes two people shout for an hour and the only clear winner is the manufacturer of migraine medication.

Still, the remedy for a bad public answer cannot always be less public answering.

These people want authority over budgets, laws and lives. They will face situations considerably less manageable than a moderator asking a follow-up question while a glass of water sits within reach.

If an uncontrolled conversation is too dangerous for your candidacy, I have some deeply upsetting news about the job.