P.E.O.P.L.E Candidates' Forum

[richardkelsey]

Now that at least one race is contested, it seems appropriate that all candidates have an opportunity to be heard in an open forum/debate on Freehold issues.

I suggest that a mid October date be chosen when PEOPLE can host a candidate forum open to the public.

[richardkelsey]

geo said:

Typically incumbents don't participate in debates. The debate usually benefits the challenger more than the incumbent.

Wow -- I never even considered that! /sarcasm off.

Just kidding!

I know these incumbants won't want to debate. That doesn't mean we can't invite them and put of the proverbial empty podium for those who refuse to show.

[richardkelsey]

geo said:

Isn't Ted one of the P.E.O.P.L.E. members?

It would be like having FF run and the ALA sponsor a debate. Who would subject themselves to that.

.....now that I am thinking about it.....would be a good evening out.

That standard for getting elected must be lower than I thought!

I ran for a county wide office in a suburban Virginia County and we had 18 debates. (yes -- 18) I won them all -- according to local media -- and opinion with which I agree.

Some were big -- and televised. Some were small. Some were sponsored by different bushiness and activist groups, others by community associations.

To the credit of the incumbents -- they never dodged one. They, like the current Borough Council, control the town and have little opposition. They believe they enjoy enormous popular support as a result of the uncontested elections and repeated re-election.

What possible fear can they have?

The debate forum should post the rules. It should appoint a reputable moderator, and it should be open to all people.

Nothing is more important than taking the questions of the citizens -- even if it is the proverbial "leaf blower" question. (i.e. My neighbor gets up every Saturday at 6:30 AM and blows his leaves outside my bedroom window -- what are you going to do about it?)

In a town where little is challenged, little opposition exists, and the Council rarely answers to anyone -- they should have no fear or resistance to one night out to debate and hear from the voters.

They can take solace in knowing they don't have to debate me! LOL

A good format might be to give each candidate 5 minutes to intro and talk as they please. Then, they can take a 2-3 questions from the host sponsor. Then they can take about 5 questions from the audience. (Audience members will drop their names in a bucket and will be picked at random to ask questions -- thus taking some of the "set-up" out of the process.)

Each side would get 3 minutes to close -- and the event would be over in 1.5 hours or less.

Easy!

[Libyan Sibyl]

incumbents don't debate, and if they did, what would it be 3 against 1???

[admin]

geo said:

EASY! for who?

For P.E.O.P.L.E. to moderate a debate between anyone and a member of the organization itself would be unfair. I shouldn't have to explain that. To insist on a forum of this type leads me to think that some folks are not interested in a fair debate at all. It would be like a very good visiting baseball team going to a field where the spectators, umpires and the opposing team all wore the same uniforms. It would not be fear that would drive spectators and players away from that game, but the likelihood of a bad show.

If the P.E.O.P.L.E. organization really wanted to have a debate between the candidates, they should enlist the Transcript or the League of Women Voters, where P.E.O.P.L.E. can play a supporting role - like getting the room.

I agree with you, Geo, the PEOPLE group should not hold a debate, at least not this year and for the reasons you cite.

I have spoken to Ted on this and he is not keen on the idea either. He has his own plans for running and the debate is not essential in this small town. Many people already know who he is.

My only reason for wanting the debate/ meet and greet is because I know very little about Kevin Kane. I will be educating myself about him so I know how to cast my vote in a wise manner.

As far as this race it will be interesting. Last year a person who few knew pulled in an impressive amount of votes against some strong candidates. This year is interesting with a person who has name recognition.

[admin]

admin said:

geo said:

EASY! for who?

For P.E.O.P.L.E. to moderate a debate between anyone and a member of the organization itself would be unfair. I shouldn't have to explain that. To insist on a forum of this type leads me to think that some folks are not interested in a fair debate at all. It would be like a very good visiting baseball team going to a field where the spectators, umpires and the opposing team all wore the same uniforms. It would not be fear that would drive spectators and players away from that game, but the likelihood of a bad show.

If the P.E.O.P.L.E. organization really wanted to have a debate between the candidates, they should enlist the Transcript or the League of Women Voters, where P.E.O.P.L.E. can play a supporting role - like getting the room.

I agree with you, Geo, the PEOPLE group should not hold a debate, at least not this year and for the reasons you cite.

I have spoken to Ted on this and he is not keen on the idea either. He has his own plans for running and the debate is not essential in this small town. Many people already know who he is.

My only reason for wanting the debate/ meet and greet is because I know very little about Kevin Kane. I will be educating myself about him so I know how to cast my vote in a wise manner.

As far as this race it will be interesting. Last year a person who few knew pulled in an impressive amount of votes against some strong candidates. This year is interesting with a person who has name recognition.

I stand corrected, there may be something happening with the PEOPLE group. Stay tooned.....

[richardkelsey]

libyansybil said:

incumbents don't debate, and if they did, what would it be 3 against 1???

I went to a 3 on 1 debate last night -- it was the 8th debate for that particular office. (the incumbent was the 1, and the challengers the 3) Per my early post -- I debated incumbents 18 times.

The one actually did pretty well.

P.E.O.P.L.E either is a fair, legitimate, political force capable of holding a fair debate under the very specific criteria I set forth -- or it is not. Hosting such a debate is not a license to use it to attack participants -- or to slant the questions and coverage. Simple ground rules can be set to insure that won't happen.

As I stated --- I debated in front of multiple organizations from environmental, to business, to issue oriented, to community centered organizations. I debated in the Gay and Lesbian forum that was held by that group. I also debated before the chamber of commerce, the league of women voters, and a host of little organizations each with their own pet agendas.

One can either stand for questions -- or they cannot.

If the PEOPLE group wants to be legitimate -- it needs to prove that it is a real organization -- with credibility, and with political clout. Otherwise it will be a vapor-ware Internet group -- like the one that Howard Dean was riding to victory before people found out that Net support does not translate to political, experienced, grass roots support.

If your candidates won't stand for a debate forum with fair rules -- shame on them. Perhaps you don't demand enough of them.

As for Mr. Miller -- if I were him -- I'd be looking for the absolute maximum exposure and coverage I can get -- even if the other candidates won't show.