The set-piece election debate, that staple of countless election campaigns, is dead - smothered by the withering self-interest of its nervy participants. Like Baldrick's trousers, "nothing of interest lies therein".
If voters in future are to get a genuine look at their leadership options, a new mechanism is required.
Happily, its elements are already emerging.
When Kevin Rudd was asked by reporters in the months after his removal what he had learned from failure, he bristled, refusing to accept a causative role.
But in front of normal people in that open-plan collective confessional that is the ABC's Q&A program, it was a different story.
Pressed on his decisions and omissions, Rudd finally conceded, inter alia, that he should definitely not have dumped his carbon trading scheme, and, that he definitely should have fenced off more time to cogitate.
"You get overwhelmed with the tide of events ... sleeping a bit more, resting a bit more, and not making bad policy calls on pretty big decisions."
It was a hallelujah moment for critics, but the fact of him admitting this at all in April of 2011 demonstrated the latent power of the ordinary citizenry within a democracy.
It's a power that comes directly from the system itself and it was again evident in the recent Sky News people's forum in western Sydney. The lesson is that politicians, no matter how eminent, cannot be seen to avoid and therefore disrespect a well-intentioned question from a member of the public. To insult one is to insult all. Journalists on the other hand, are fair game - merely participants in the game, obsessed with the gotcha moment.
Sunday's leaders' debate had none of this freshness. Questions from reporters were routinely ignored or reworked with no comeback. The rules, right down to the reporters involved, were prescriptive to the point of absurdity. Interjections and follow-ups banned. Even interaction between the leaders was forbidden - although some occurred anyway.
Encouragingly, there is talk of at least one more head-to-head event in this campaign, given there's still more than a month to go. If so, there is a compelling case, on democratic grounds, for significant deregulation.
Short of direct public involvement, opening statements could be scotched, genuine back and forth allowed, and much shorter answers to enable wider subject matter.
But all of this is risky for politicians so don't hold you breath.
