Proactive Gamecocks who brought themselves to the Russell House expecting a candid debate among prospective Student Government candidates were likely very disappointed Monday night. The candidates themselves sure seemed appealing, but there was little of the verbal jousting that provides deeper insight into the candidates’ ability and beliefs. In fact, it wasn’t really a debate at all.
The question and answer session was definitely informative, but offered nothing that some basic research on the candidates and their platforms wouldn’t reap. Moving forward, we need to iron out any wrinkles and redundancies in the campaign process.
We’ll jump straight to the point: candidates need an official event to formally pitch themselves in a speech. By publicly advertising their credentials, aspirations and platform via spoken word and in a structured setting, both students and candidates alike can get a better grasp of the political landscape. In turn, this information and public introduction can be processed in time for a formal debate scheduled days later. By providing a distinct springboard of introductory information, candidates can arm themselves with knowledge on the opposition and hit the ground running. Welcome back, smug rebuttals and feverish schadenfreude: the lifeblood of any good debate.
Without the formal speech, it seems candidates prefer to tout their platform when they’re given the spotlight. At least, it was that way this year. In year’s past, healthy debate has occurred. Perhaps this season’s candidates shy away from public disagreement, but more than likely it was the questions themselves that didn’t quite cut to the chase. Either way, there was no debate to be had, and certainly no pressure on the candidates.
As it stands, there’s little criticism to suffer as an individual for not properly participating in the debate. If there were, you might have seen some names dropped in this. Scheduling a dedicated event for the candidates to formally introduce themselves and their platform will also provide the necessary pressure to actually debate and deliberate.
Let’s get our campaign season streamlined, USC. We want our democratic process to deliver the best possible product, and the lack of a proper debate leaves critical candidate values unknown to the student body. By scheduling a dedicated day for speeches in advance of the debate, we will leave no room for anything but a lively debate. We admire how well our candidates prepare, year after year, but seeing how they think on the fly is always most appealing.