Britain's Televised Election Debates: U.S. Politics 2.0?

For the first time in history, the leaders of Britain's three main political parties will go head to head in a series of televised political debates. While many are wondering what impact this will have on the upcoming general election, the bigger question on everyone's mind is whether we are witnessing the Americanization of British politics.

Televised debates are a mainstay of American politics. Ever since the first -- and still iconic -- face-off between a sweating, visibly nervous Richard Nixon and the handsome young John F. Kennedy in 1960, political debates have remained a touchstone for voters in the media age. Al Gore's famous "lock box" comment during the 2000 debates -- together with his wooden, pedantic delivery -- gave rise to an entire late-night comedy industry. In the 2008 campaign, the debates cemented an image of John McCain as angry in contrast to Obama as cool under fire.

In short: Televised political debates are part and parcel of American presidential elections.

Not so in the U.K. For starters, this is a parliamentary political system, which means that when you vote in a general election, you're not really voting for the prime minister but for a political party (with a local member of Parliament -- MP -- as your representative of that party's platform).

Second, the leaders of the three major parties already square off on a regular basis through the weekly "Prime Minister's Questions." This is an open, televised forum where any member of any party can question the prime minister about the issues of the day. So there's arguably less need for a formal debate.

But that's all about to change. On Monday, the three possible future chancellors of the economy (Treasury secretary equivalents) appeared in a televised debate about the future of the British economy. This was a precursor to three upcoming debates between the three possible future prime ministers that are set to take place before the general election (which must be held by June 6).

Reactions to all this have been mixed. On the positive side, some feel that the debates will allow voters to get to know the candidates on a more personal level by revealing their true character. To that end, as one commentator in The Daily Telegraph wrote, "despite the silly rules, the spin and the artificiality, these debates could be the best chance British voters have of experiencing a moment of truth during this campaign."

Another (initially skeptical) columnist writing in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner was pleasantly surprised by the substance of Monday night's debate. "The politicians talked about proper policy areas like taxation and banking rather than driveling on about their wonderful wives or their favorite biscuits." (If only that were true in the U.S.!)

On the negative side, one writer wondered aloud how much debates really affect electoral outcomes -- even in America. And given how much British party leaders already interact in parliament, there's a chance the debates might end up being much duller than their American counterparts -- turning voters off rather than engaging them.

But by far the biggest fear is that the debates are one more sign of a creeping Americanization of British politics. As one astute columnist in The Guardian pointed out, the debates follow closely on the heels of a decision by Conservative party leader David Cameron to hold open primaries to select the MP candidate in one district (rather than relying on centralized party lists, as is the custom here).

Last October also saw the creation of an independent U.K. Supreme Court, a legal body that used to reside within Parliament. While candidate debates and open primaries and independent courts all have a place within the candidate-centered institutional fabric of the United States, they are arguably quite ill-suited to a party-centered political system like the U.K.'s.

If you think all of this is just academic, it isn't. I nearly came to blows with one good friend when I casually mentioned that I didn't find Cameron all that unappealing as a candidate. "This is not a presidential race!" he screamed at me. "We elect parties! Not people!" Indeed, Labour is banking on the belief that voters will brush aside the eloquent, camera-friendly Cameron in favor of Labour's tone deaf leader, Gordon Brown, precisely because they fear the budget cuts entailed in the Tory platform. (The race is still too close to call, and many are predicting a hung Parliament in which no party holds a majority.)

Personally? I can't wait. I'm not much of one to sit through "Prime Minister's Questions." But a real, live political debate? Bring it on.

And please pass the popcorn.

Follow Delia on Twitter.