Where do you find reliable information about candidates? The voters’ guide from your county auditor publishes basic information candidates provide about their background, experience and focus. And, closer to the General Election, VoteWA.gov and Vote411.org can be helpful sources.
But particularly valuable is hearing directly from the candidates themselves.
Candidates who take questions in a forum display their willingness to engage publicly, a sign they also may willingly meet and engage with constituents if they win. The way they conduct themselves during these events also may say much about how they will serve if they win.
Every election cycle, the League of Women Voters takes on the same quiet, unglamorous task of booking a room or scheduling an online session and inviting every candidate on the ballot to participate. The forum moderator asks each participant the same questions -- inquiries designed to prompt thoughtful responses about important issues and concerns in a community or region.
And every election cycle, some candidates decline to participate. The reason is almost always some version of the same complaint: The League is "partisan," the forum is "rigged," or showing up would be pointless or unfair.
Whatever the explanation, the suggestion the sponsor is partisan doesn’t match with how the League operates.
The League’s commitment to supporting and defending democracy is vigorous and unyielding, as it has been since its founding in 1920. Since then, at the local, state and national levels, the League has never endorsed or opposed candidates or political parties.
We do, however, support issues -- on the environment, reproductive rights, voting rights, education, healthcare, criminal justice and redistricting, to name but a few. But we advocate for those policy positions only after extensive study and consensus of our membership.
The questions we pose – and how we ask them -- are professional and polite. Yes, they can be probing and tough. After all, responding to difficult questions about how to solve difficult problems is rarely easy.
But the questions the League poses are far from the interrogations a candidate may encounter from a television reporter -- or an angry constituent.
Political scientists tell us decisions in high-profile races typically are made long before candidates face off on stage. News coverage consumed months earlier usually shapes decisions, and debates in these races barely move the needle on a voter’s final choices.
The research, however, says very little about races for school board, city council, or state legislature, where League forums tend to have the most impact. In fact, with no saturation coverage – a reality worsened by the decline of local journalism -- a forum may offer the only meaningful opportunity to compare candidates.
Political scientists say risk drives a candidate to sit out a public forum. A candidate leading the pack early on has little to gain by sharing a stage with opponents.
But they have much to lose from a gaffe, an unscripted misstep, or a moment clipped out of context.
Declining typically stems from a calculation that broad public scrutiny offers greater risk than benefit.
A forum invitation extended equally to every candidate and by an organization with no endorsement to give strips away the benefit of a familiar name, a bigger budget, or an incumbent title.
Sadly, the practice of retreating from public accountability is growing. Debate participation among U.S. Senate and gubernatorial candidates has been falling since at least 2016.
Voters needn’t assume the worst about a candidate who doesn’t participate. But they should ask what a candidate may be trying to avoid.
Candidates confident in their record and their answers should welcome the comparison. One who avoids it makes a choice, too.
And that choice should be part of a voter’s calculation.
Comments
Loading comments…