Democratic incumbent Gov. Jim Doyle and Republican candidate U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Green Bay, challenged each other at their third and final debate Friday night, focusing on health care, education and each other's ethical blunders.
The debate structure allowed selected Wisconsin residents, instead of a news anchor, to ask questions of the two candidates.
We believe the structure, content and time of the debates did not correctly inform Wisconsin residents enough to make a guided decision at the polls Nov. 7, especially because they took place on Friday nights at 7 p.m.
UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin told The Daily Cardinal that people's opinions will probably not be swayed by the debate as more Wisconsin residents are likely to be found at a fish fry on Friday night than at home watching a debate. We agree with Franklin that a Friday night slot was not the most appropriate time to stage a debate if the goal is to reach a majority of Wisconsin residents.
Also, while it is important to hear questions directly from the people of Wisconsin, we believe it would have been more beneficial to balance these questions with those from a Wisconsin political expert.
Audience questions bring forward true concerns from the people who will elect the next governor, but including questions from someone more qualified allows for a greater variety of material covered and also prevents the candidates from falling into the political spin game.
The one issue the candidates did spend sufficient time discussing was healthcare.
After listening to the positions of the two candidates, we feel Green's plan for Health Savings Accounts is impractical and too optimistic.
We also agree with Doyle that focus should not be placed on privatization programs like HSAs, but the restructuring and improvement of public programs like Medicaid.
Unfortunately, Wisconsin residents were left wanting more when it came to candidate opinions on other social issues, as they spent an inordinate amount of the debate time attacking each other.
We acknowledge that pointing out the shortcomings of the opponent is part of the election process, but spending so much time arguing over whether or not campaign funds are legal only takes away from the overall goal: informing voters.
In the future, we feel that, in addition to a more appropriate date and time slot for the debates, the candidates should save the bashing for their television ads and respond to the queries of the people.
