2008 Woodie Awards
Student Government debate format could use reform
Staff Editorial
Issue date: 12/3/07 Section: Soap Box
Thursday's Student Government debate may have given candidates a chance to explain their platform positions, but since the candidates wrote their own questions, students lost an opportunity to learn about the issues they personally care about.
The Fair Elections Practices Commission (FEPC) lacks specific guidelines for carrying on a debate. It would behoove the organization to come up with an open, transparent process that guarantees the neutrality of questions.
FEPC was ultimately responsible for the questions, but the candidates submitted them prior to the debate, ensuring that they were limited to issues the candidates had positions on. Low turnout assured the audience participation portion of the evening also consisted largely of questions by students who had already made up their minds about the candidates.
The FEPC cannot be held responsible for a lack of student interest. However, the FEPC could still ensure that independent, thought-provoking questions from the student body are addressed by outsourcing the process of question-writing to various organizations further removed from the election process.
Sponsors for the debate included three organizations with ties to a candidate in the election. While there is no evidence of any dirty politics at work, the illusions of impropriety are a headache for both Student Government and those seeking evidence of conspiracies.
The UMaine Debate Team should have a place, but this year, might have insisted on passing due to Steven Moran, president of UMaine Forensics, of which the Debate Team is a part, being a running mate of a candidate. Potential question sources could also include groups like The Maine Channel, WMEB and, dare we say, The Maine Campus.
The Fair Elections Practices Commission (FEPC) lacks specific guidelines for carrying on a debate. It would behoove the organization to come up with an open, transparent process that guarantees the neutrality of questions.
FEPC was ultimately responsible for the questions, but the candidates submitted them prior to the debate, ensuring that they were limited to issues the candidates had positions on. Low turnout assured the audience participation portion of the evening also consisted largely of questions by students who had already made up their minds about the candidates.
The FEPC cannot be held responsible for a lack of student interest. However, the FEPC could still ensure that independent, thought-provoking questions from the student body are addressed by outsourcing the process of question-writing to various organizations further removed from the election process.
Sponsors for the debate included three organizations with ties to a candidate in the election. While there is no evidence of any dirty politics at work, the illusions of impropriety are a headache for both Student Government and those seeking evidence of conspiracies.
The UMaine Debate Team should have a place, but this year, might have insisted on passing due to Steven Moran, president of UMaine Forensics, of which the Debate Team is a part, being a running mate of a candidate. Potential question sources could also include groups like The Maine Channel, WMEB and, dare we say, The Maine Campus.
Be the first to comment on this story