Main Street Journal: On the River: Debate Crazy: How we choose our Mayor

The Main Street Journal Website

The following article is taken from the October 2009 issue of the Main Street Journal. Click “Subscribe Online” above to start your subscription.

Debate Crazy: How we choose our Mayor
By: Jonathan Lindberg

Does anyone blame AC Wharton for skipping debates during the special election for Memphis Mayor? Sure, the organizers of the debates he chose to forego cried foul at his disregard for not speaking to their audience. But honestly, how many debates do we really need? It seemed like every group with more than a dozen members was organizing some sort of debate and trumpeting their event as if it were something new.

The same candidates asked the same questions in the same type format giving the same answers.

After a while, these same debates lost their punch. They became events more about the organizers ability to draw together the major candidates and less about the candidates themselves.

It is little wonder then that Wanda Halbert, City Councilwoman and candidate complained that the barrage of debates was taking her away from being able to talk face-to-face with actual undecided voters.

A novel concept to say the least.

In the mind of the candidates, the message seemed clear – a forum with a dozen candidates and less than five minutes total per candidate to speak is hardly the most effective way to win over undecided voters. These candidates would rather be in front of groups and organizations with a microphone in their hand delivering their message on how to move this city ahead.

Debates work when there are two or three candidates. When there are twelve, it is watered down at best and pandemonium at worst.

So how do we elect our mayor? It was interesting to watch poll numbers for AC Wharton climb during the month of September, while Carol Chumney, his presumed challenger, faded. The closer we drew to Election Day, the more the undecided voters seemed to shift toward the front-runner.

At the risk of sounding too simplistic, voters seemed to respond to three things in this election: experience, race and visibility. For the front-runners (Wharton, and then Chumney, Lowery and Carpenter), participating in endless debates week-after-week seemed to offer little reward.

This is why you had fringe candidates like Robert “Mongo” Hodges and Jerry Lawler threatening lawsuits in order to get invited to debates while the front runners threatened to boycott debates or simply did not show up.

There was nothing to gain by attending.

The way we choose our mayor has definitely evolved from the days of Boss Crump who would handpick candidates and dictate terms. Nowadays, experience matters. Personality matters. Money and fundraising matters. Waiting-your-turn seems to matter.

But what has also changed is the impact from traditional methods of gaining ground, namely debates (local and national) and endorsements from newspapers. In an instant, shifting digital age, these things have seemingly lost their punch.

It is time we adapt.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks