I was disappointed after watching the Montana Republican governor debate. Rick Hill was't even in attendance. I also heard the candidates were given the questions before the debate, at the request of Hill and Essmann.
I am a person who separates myself from politics but believes strongly in the traditional election procedures. To me, letting the candidates study the questions before a debate ruins the whole event. It isn't a debate if candidates just read off scripted answers to questions. I vote, but I don't spend every waking hour discovering every minute detail on the candidates. This means I use the debates to make much of my judgments on the candidates and their positions. Any candidate can write beautiful, scripted answers to questions, but the truly good candidates are those who stick to their values and can repeat their stances on issues.
The next governor of Montana will need to think on their feet, and answering rehearsed questions with prewritten answers does a disservice to voters by sheltering the fake candidates among the good, honest ones.
How can we as voters choose the best candidate when the supposed front runner does't think it's worth his time to debate the issues? I also hope that voters encourage Rick Hill to address Montanans in a true debate, rather than just asking for money from large donors. I'd like to know the real personalities and arguments of the candidates. This is the only way to find the best fit for Montana's next governor.
Student, University of Montana
Finance, minor Economics