The near lack of joint debate or forum appearances by the two major party candidates for Kansas governor has drawn considerable attention across the state, but the gubernatorial candidates aren’t the only ones opting out of such events.
The unwillingness of candidates to participate in voter education events is reaching all the way to the local level.
Republican U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback and Democratic State Sen. Tom Holland had their first — and probably last — televised debate on Thursday in Wichita. The event included two minor party candidates and ran for less than 30 minutes so it offered a limited opportunity for voters to learn much about the candidates and their positions. Holland has proposed other debates, but Brownback’s campaign says it’s unlikely they will be able to fit more into his schedule.
There have been no debates between Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran and his Democratic challenger, Lisa Johnston, in the race to fill Brownback’s Senate seat. There has been a little more activity in the state’s four congressional races because incumbents in three of those districts weren’t running for re-election, but there have been no debates that we’ve heard about in the 2nd District where incumbent Republican Rep. Lynn Jenkins is being challenged by Democrat Cheryl Hudspeth.
Empty chairs also have marked local forums organized by the Voter Education Coalition. Two candidates didn’t participate or send representatives to a legislative forum held last week at City Hall. One declined; the other didn’t even respond to the group’s invitation.
What’s the deal? People trying to organize the debates are being told that it’s largely a political judgment. The candidates declining invitations apparently believe they have nothing to gain by participating in nonpartisan forums or debates. They are better served, politically, by personal appearances where they control the message that is delivered, usually, to highly supportive crowds.
Those appearances work for the candidates, but don’t people seeking election to public office have an obligation also to do what works for voters? While candidates are preaching to their partisan choirs — or simply staying out of sight entirely — voters are learning little about the candidates or their stands on key issues. Without public debates or forums to help them pick a candidate, many people will go to the polls and cast their votes based on little more than name recognition or a candidate’s party affiliation.
In some cases, that’s exactly what candidates are banking on, but that tactic is an injustice to voters and an insult to the democratic process. Candidates — both incumbents and newcomers — should be willing and eager to discuss the issues with their opponents at multiple nonpartisan forums during the election season. They should be willing to face voters who support them, those who oppose them and those who are still making up their minds. All of those voters eventually will be the constituents of the candidate who wins the race and they deserve an opportunity to make an informed choice.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
tanzer (anonymous) says…
If you don't know about a candidate don't vote.
nobody1793 (anonymous) says…
Problem is that what they say in a debate is either devoid of any real information, completely impractical to implement, or flat-out pandering. S. O. S.
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
*...personal appearances where they control the message that is delivered, usually, to highly supportive crowds.* = Sounds like one of Bill Clinton's pretend Town Meetings.
Moran is accustomed to taking big money from the feeders and packers and such, running up a big lead, ignoring any questions out in the district, and winning by huge margins. Not the best model for service, but you have to admit it would be hard to decide to try a different method.
Brownback has been in office long enough that everybody pretty much knows who he is and where he stands, and we would all tend to lose an hour or two hearing him remind us of those stands.
In those two races, the Democrats have put up token resistance, at best, by coaxing out candidates that are loyal to the party, probably are nice folks, and maybe would make decent public officials, but who have zero chance of actually competing, yet less winning. In the Jenkins race, I don't even know who Cheryl Hudspeth is, and would have to say she must not be trying very hard to get me to vote for her, as we have not even crossed the name-recognition threshold by mid-October.
That leaves us one choice: We must rely on the efforts of an energetic and inquisitive local media to investigate the positions of the candidates and report them to us in an objective manner, concerned with the need of the public to know, and not with the underlying interests of the reporting media. We CAN rely on that, can't we?
robinhoodlum (anonymous) says…
Reasons are clear in Kansas. Neither party has a clue and they don't want to prove it out right to the voters. The Democrats don't have enough power in numbers to support any form of their ideas for a platform and the Republicans have no platform. As usual the voters will be left to vote mindlessly or along party lines relieving the candidates of any responsibility. Kansas will be stuck with business as usual.
whatupdown (anonymous) says…
Seems like the rich, greedy Republicans don't want the poor to have health coverage.