LEAD South Dakota continues to organize and provide the public with opportunities to engage with state-level politics. On Saturday, August 25, they’re coming to Aberdeen to train volunteers at 1 p.m., then grill Legislative candidates at 2:30 p.m.
The only downside to the latter event is that LEAD has adopted the inferior rotating-small-group format that the League of Women Voters imposed on city council and school board candidates at their May forum. According to my candidate invitation…
This forum will be run slightly differently than others you may have attended. Each candidate will be seated at their own table. Community members from your district will divide into small groups and rotate between the tables (allowing 15 minutes per group). This allows you, the candidate, time to answer individual questions and address personal concerns with your constituents more efficiently than in a larger group setting. At the start, candidates will be allowed 2 minutes to speak to the group as a whole, with the speaking order selected at random draw [LEAD South Dakota, invitation to candidate forum, 2018.08.15].
The small-group forum is not more efficient. Candidates will likely repeat themselves on similar questions from different constituents. The rotating small groups also deny voters the chance to hear every word that every candidate says and come away with a shared set of information about each candidate. The press also cannot fairly cover the rotating small group forum, since no one reporter can hear every question and report the responses that all candidates give to that question.
Separated in small groups, the candidates also lose the chance to hear and respond to each other. If I’m sitting at a table making false statements about my District 3 Senate opponent Al Novstrup, Al should have the chance to respond directly. If Al is misstating the provisions of the bills he sponsors, I should have the chance to correct his misinformation immediately.
The traditional large-group format provides a superior experience for voters, the press, and the candidates. Every candidate gets the same questions and gets the same opportunity to answer them. Reporters can report on each candidate fairly and record the entire event for others to view and evaluate. We get plenty of time to talk to voters individually before and after public events like this; the events themselves should place candidates on the same stage, facing the same questions, enjoying the chance to correct each other’s errors, and showing their knowledge and abilities side by side for the fairest comparison.
But hey, the fact that I don’t like the decor won’t keep me from accepting an invitation to a party. As a candidate for public office, it’s my job to join in public conversations and answer the public’s questions in pretty much whatever format the public poses them. I’ll join LEAD Saturday, August 25, at 2:30 p.m. at the Aberdeen Public Safety Building (that’s the police station) Community Room to answer any questions you all want to bring. See you there!
I can see the advantage for citizens to be up close with a candidate, look into her eyes, assess her more personally. However, unless the individual is very well versed in issues, it will be difficult to know how accurate the candidate’s statements are, how honest and how realistic. Depending upon how much time is available, a combination of both types of forums might serve potential constituents best.
Yeah, but, at the Legislative level, citizens can be up close with a candidate almost any time they want. They can come have those eye-to-eye conversations with us at the Brown County Fair, or at McDonald’s, or at Ken’s grocery store. Citizens don’t get any other chance to gather en masse and demand that all candidates answer questions in front of a big crowd and the press, on the record and accountable. We need more big public forums, not fewer, to complement the many one-on-one conversations that already happen.
Besides, I’d contend that folks who would prefer to ask questions individually rather than from amidst an audience will probably still find even the small-group setting too big and public. Reporters sitting in on the small groups will deter them all the more.
In multiple ways, the public small-grop forum is suboptimal. I’ll still participate eagerly and engage as many people as I can in conversation, but I’ll also keep advocating for a better, more traditional format that is fairer to the candidates, the press, and to all members of the public, including those who can’t make the event but who might learn something from press coverage.
It sounds like a cocktail party, without the liquor.
Ms. Geelsdottir, in the case of these small groups where you can look in her eyes, would it be OK for the citizens to hug the candidates?
This is an interesting format. It is good for a one time event, but not any more.
I think citizens are more than capable of asking good questions and having informed opinions. They aren’t necessarily going to be specialists in every issue, but most people know what’s important to them. If a person has kids, for example, education will be something they know something about, and may want to ask about. And everyone pays taxes. Most drive the roads, have a job, etc. They probably have questions about corruption, governance, etc. If there are hunters or fishers, they will certainly be interested in those issues.
I actually like this format because it can be more of a grueling test for the candidates. Make them suffer the stupidity of the electorate, over and over, with the same dumb questions. This will be their life, should they be elected. And for those in the legislatures, they will get many perqs and lots of free food and gifts, but they will suffer the most for the weak wages and the constituents who are fringer than most.