Posted on: Sunday, July 25, 2004

EDITORIAL
Candidate debates aid voters and campaign

At the risk of sounding like a page out of a "Civics 101" textbook, we do truly believe that frequent and vigorous debates between candidates for major office benefit the voters and the campaigns as well.

Thus we are somewhat disappointed in the predictable, but unfortunate, shortage of true public debates so far between leading Honolulu mayoral candidates Mufi Hannemann and Duke Bainum.

Hannemann, by most accounts the slight underdog at this point, has been pressing hard for more appearances with Bainum.

Bainum has played it carefully, agreeing to limited joint appearances and insisting on relatively strict ground rules.

As staff writer Johnny Brannon noted in his story on the debate matter, this is fairly typical behavior for the front-runner and the challenger.

And at the end of the day, each candidate must take the path he believes is the best route to winning the election.

We'd suggest the best route is a compromise between the positions staked out by the two camps.

Bainum prefers a format in which each candidate, even in joint appearances, makes in effect a solo presentation. Hannemann wants to mix it up, with the candidates engaging each other as much as the audience.

Why not do both? If it's a structured event, Hannemann should gladly show up anyway. And if the folks putting on the program want to see the candidates interact, Bainum should take the challenge.

The point is to get these candidates (and others as well) before the public as much as possible. It is frequency more than format that counts.