We lost our debate, but we can’t find the logic behind the rule that forced its cancellation.
Today we were informed by the powers that be that The Post’s planned debate for Tuesday evening wouldn’t feature any candidates.
We expect such poor candidate attendance because of a senate rule — 100.16 (b) of its Rules and Procedures, to be specific — that prohibits candidates from participating in a debate within two calendar days of an election.
(Its rules also state — in 100.32 (e)(i) — that candidates cannot participate in a debate within 24 hours of Election Day. Redundancy or contradiction? It’s your call.)
After speaking with administrators and the university’s Board of Election officials, we learned there wasn’t much leeway in the interpretation or enforcement of the rule — we understand that.
But we don’t know why it’s a rule, and the candidates don’t seem to know either. Who knows? Restricting the careful debate of ideas might seem prudent to some.
So, we canceled the damn thing.
We were unaware of the prohibition before scheduling the debate for Tuesday, and we apologize for our mistake. The Post has long espoused the merits of freely exchanging information, especially while discussing topics of such importance.
Our debate would have, hopefully, contributed to that end. But our reporters have been diligently following the candidates, the platforms and previous debates. In addition, we will publish The Post’s candidate endorsements Wednesday.
The coverage and the endorsements should aid voters in making their decisions. We regret that a debate couldn’t also help — unfortunately, it wasn’t meant to be.
We were super well prepared, too. You’ll just have to trust us on that.
Editorials represent the majority opinion of The Post’s executive editors.
