October 2002

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

On the Massachusetts 'Gubernatorial Debate'

A friend forwarded us this exchange between Alex Maws, a Massachusetts voter, and the host of the televised September 24 Massachusetts gubernatorial debate. Only Republican candidate Mitt Romney and Democratic candidate Shannon O'Brien were invited participants in the debate. The Western New England College Debate Committee can be contacted at 1215 Wilbraham Rd., Springfield, MA 01119.

From Alex Maws to the Debate Committee of Western New England College:

I am pleased to learn that your institution is sponsoring a gubernatorial debate, as such forums provide a valuable service to the public.

But I am disheartened by the fact that you have set completely arbitrary standards for determining which candidates shall be included. By excluding two out of the four candidates for governor, you completely undermine the purpose of the debate.

How are candidates like [Libertarian] Carla Howell and [Green Party] Jill Stein supposed to gain enough support in opinion polls if they are not allowed to present their positions to the public? Through the standards it has set, WNEC is tacitly endorsing the notion that only well-funded, major party candidates deserve serious consideration.

I would argue that since the Democratic and Republican candidates are already saturating the airways with their paid messages, Howell and Stein are the most deserving of a spot in your debate, not the least deserving.

I urge WNEC to reconsider.

The WNEC Debate Committee responds:

We appreciate your interest in the debate. We hope you will take the time to watch or listen to the debate live on your local educational television or radio station.

As you may know, Western New England College is the host for the debate [working with several area sponsors]. Planning for this debate started about one year ago. Within months of the initial decision to hold the debate, because of a variety of technical concerns relating to limited air time, television production, campus facilities, and debate atmosphere, the decision was made to invite only the leading candidates.

In addition, surveys of voters and the recent primary elections have shown that the general public has focused and will continue to focus on the front runners. Sponsors of prior debates, at the state and national levels, have operated on the same premise. We were guided by that successful, historic model. For example, debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters have restricted participation to the leading candidates. This reflects the reality of the American electoral system, and the desires of the electorate. After all, the purpose of the debate is to expose the differences between the principal candidates in which the voters, in opinion polls and at primary elections, have expressed their interest.

Furthermore, production costs permitted only one hour of air time. It is simply not possible to have a full and fair debate among four candidates in that time allotment. The message of any candidate would be diluted. Our desire to include students and allow questions from the general public also shaped the decision to limit participation to the front runners.

Finally, in an open and democratic society such as ours, candidates for public office have many channels in which to convey their message to the citizenry, such as newspapers, flyers, telephones, hand-held signs, public rallies, facsimiles, posters, billboards, door-to-door solicitation, and the Internet.

Alex Maws' rejoinder:

Considering that we live in an era of embarrassingly low participation in elections, I cannot possibly imagine why you would choose to adhere to pre-existing standards for including candidates in a debate simply because this is the way it is usually done. You call this model "successful?" The very debates on which you are modeling your own are partly responsible for boring the voting public into complacency in the first place with their limited choices.

Moreover, to claim that your college and the other debate sponsors are simply unable to accommodate more than two candidates is beyond absurd. We've all seen numerous political debates with four or more candidates. It happens all the time in primary elections. I do not understand from your letter what logistical concerns prevent you from inviting all of the candidates. Do you lack the funds for the additional podiums and microphones? Is the stage particularly small? If you are truly unable to host a debate that features four, rather than two candidates, then I would suggest that you lack either the facilities or the ingenuity to host a debate at all.

Finally, your claim that you knew early on the your planning of the debate that you could only accommodate two candidates exposes the dishonesty of your claim that if candidates like Jill Stein and Carla Howell only had better polling numbers that they would be included.

The bottom line is that you have chosen to include only 50% of the candidates for governor in your "gubernatorial debate." This demonstrates the low regard in which your college holds the democratic process. Including more candidates is not only good for this process, but good for your television sponsors, since it will attract more viewers (like me). To answer your request: no, I will not be watching your debate. Not when the candidate who best represents my views is being excluded.

Previous Article    Next Article