Lee, I could not agree more with your position. Permit me, if I may, to just add some of my own thoughts and/or observations:
A fair object debate format is an opportunity for a challenger to stand on equal footing with an incumbent. Although Mr. Fudoli was a County Legislator at the time, he had a hard climb against long-time Supervisor and Councilman, Robert Giza, who was far better known to the average Lancaster voter.The debate that took place in Lancaster’s Oprah Hall between then incumbent Supervisor Robert Giza and challenger Dino Fudoli was also historic.
That exchange gave the challenger an almost sanitized opportunity to seriously and thoughtfully demonstrate his grasp and command of the issues, and to present his vision, bypassing the sleaze reflected in the contrived narratives arising from the worlds of manipulated facts and the politics of personal destruction.
Debates are always dicey, especially for incumbents, who risk exposing unnoticed or unreported weaknesses and/or controversies.
To be sure, Supervisor Giza deserves credit for his agreement to participate in the 2011 debate .
Equally, former Supervisor Fudoli deserves the exact same credit for 2015.
If my understanding is correct, Supervisor Fudoli, was eager to debate Town Clerk Coleman. It was Mrs. Coleman, enjoying as she did broad name recognition, who, as would a comfortable incumbent, seemingly dodged such a debate, .
Provided that questions, and the screeners, are not inclined to favor or hurt one candidate at the expense of another, that format seems very acceptable.questions came from the attendees and were screened by the Woman’s League of Voters for relevance and importance,
And that is the pure, intended purpose of a debate.More importantly, the debate allowed attendees the opportunity to listen to both candidates addressing a perceived issue facing the town at the same time; and/or they’re idea for resolve and reason for their claim for change.
Regrettably, too often, debates turn into showboat, gotcha circuses. Therefore, serious, objective safeguards need to be applied in crafting the debate format.
Absolutely true.IMHO such format serves the voters better than candidates walking door-to-door often presenting ideas without challenge, claiming feedback from residents that often is manipulated
I would also point out that there is some risk to the candidates in the door-to-door campaign. That is to say, in a day of cell-phone video and the like, a door-to-door, or for that matter, the public gathering environment, may lend itself to opposition mischief and manipulation. That is why I feel that candidates should always accompany themselves with a supporter, who can function as a "buffer" or as a witness.