Political Debates Often More Show Than Substance

Few objective observers would claim that the American political system operated optimally, or that there are numerous flaws in most of our elected officials. There have been numerous attempts to "fix" the problem, but like most of the political solutions, they were either ineffective or had huge loopholes in them, that made them nearly useless. Our campaign finance laws are weak and ineffective at best, ridiculous at worst. This has led some to call for more debates between candidates, but often the structure, format, moderators and rules of these debates diminish any substantial true debate from occurring.

Recently, the candidates for Governor from the State of New York participated in a debate, held at Hofstra University in Long Island, and televised only on Cablevision's owned News12. Obviously, televising it exclusively on only one cable service provider's network, although the largest provider in the state, effectively eliminated anyone with other systems throughout the state, including Time Warner, Comcast, DISH, DirectTV, FIOS, etc.

Even worse, however, was that, even though only two of the major candidates, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Carl Paladino, have any type of realistic chance of victory, and most of the other candidates represent what many would refer to as "fringe" beliefs, all candidates, major and minor party, realistic chance of becoming Governor or "no shot," were all invited to participate.

While some explained that all were invited because in a democracy, all voices should be heard, since there are so few debates, this obviously diminished any type of realistic and substantive discussion by either major candidate, either in depth on issues, or regarding certain campaign claims that have been made. What makes this even more unfortunate is that much of the campaign advertising has been exploitive and some would say unsubstantiated and "dirty politics."

When one of the minor party candidates is a man running on the "Rents are too damned high" party, and another was a former (and perhaps still) madam running on the "Anti-Prohibition" party, it is easy to see why this format might provide some entertainment value and great one-liners. However, unfortunately, especially in these times of economic uncertainty and high joblessness, under-employment, and unemployment, and the public's concern and disgust about high taxation with limited perceived value or benefit, would the public not have been better served by a face-to-face in-depth true debate between the two major party candidates, one of which will become Governor of the second largest state in our nation.

Granted, reality shows have, fortunately or unfortunately, for a variety of different reasons, become the most profitable and prevalent form of television entertainment. I suppose the format that this debate followed was in line with the supposed public demand for reality shows. Yet, is it only me, or are others also concerned that voters who might really want to have an optimum chance of making a decision about voting for the candidate that best meets their views and needs, are being deprived of true information to base such a decision.

This is not a situation that is occurring solely in one state. Slick, negative advertising has become more the rule than informative debate. This will continue until the public creates an uproar!