Distance, as they say, makes the heart grow fonder. Here's a Labour Day weekend thought from away.I've been around Canadian elections longer than I care to remember. I think this is a particularly interesting, and mostly healthy, one.I know it's popular to decry this and that - and in the end almost everything - about politics, politicians and political parties. Some of that has been earned, but not all of it. People should step back a bit, especially the hyper-partisans who can be so unfair about each other, well past the point of honesty.Beyond that, though, this long campaign, and its three competitively-matched combatants, are giving Canadians something we've not seen for a long long time. Maybe never.I think there are three things driving this:(i) The longer-than-usual campaign, which is essentially a (happy) result of knowing four years ahead of time when Election Day was going to be. This afforded all participants equal opportunity to determine when to start gearing up, touring and campaigning and nominating candidates and announcing platform elements;(ii) Canada's first authentic three-way electoral competition. In 148 years, Canada has only had two federal elections in which three parties each received over 20% of the vote (1921 and 1988). We've never had a federal election in which three parties have each received over 23% support; we almost certainly will this time. This past month, we've had polls in which the top three parties are within the margin of error of one another, and in which the parties are in differing orders vis-a-vis each other. This is producing an unusual intensity and heightening of interest; and(iii) These three parties and leaders are presenting visions and policies that contrast with one another. This may sound obvious, but in fact the opposite is often the case. We've had many campaigns in which the parties crowded each other with similar positions, or at least suppressed their differences so as not to frighten away potential supporters. That is not how this election is being fought.Over the years, we've shortened and shortened campaigns until they became five-week sprints, ever lighter on substance. Week one came to be preoccupied by process and framing and strategy reporting. Week three would be centred around a pair of leaders debates; sometimes illuminating, often not. Week five would be consumed by get-out-the-vote messaging, forecasting and punditry. In between, parties would squeeze in major policy announcements, most of which suffered from scant discussion and disappeared from sight very briefly.In contrast, this ten-week campaign is affording plenty of time for more serious issue discussion than we've become used to - and these three leaders are making the most of it. The Senate expenses scandal, the state of the economy, deficits versus balanced budgets, tax relief, foreign affairs, refugee policy: all of these have already had a more substantive going-over than we usually see. The old role of campaigns as opportunities to raise the bar of public familiarity and understanding of major policy questions is re-asserting itself. These are good things. And, voters are getting a decent opportunity to evaluate three quite different leaders and platforms. That too is a good thing.The voters I hear from are enjoying this campaign, and taking it pretty seriously. They know they're in the driver's seat more than is usually the case, and they know they've got the time to think and reflect and discuss and ponder. This, too, is good.Bottom line: I think this is one of the healthier exercises in electoral democracy Canada's enjoyed in quite some time.Happy Labour Day.Rick Anderson is a Canadian political strategist, public affairs commentator and businessman.  His current business activities include serving as CEO of i2 Ideas & Issues Advertising Inc., President of ASCI Anderson Strategic Consulting Inc and Partner with National Newswatch.