JAKE
MOKRIS
Monday night, I attended my first political debate. I was not sure what to expect as I arrived at the Pullo Family Performing Arts Center at Penn State York. I didn’t even know if I’d get a seat: All the parking lots were full. Fortunately, not everyone parked went to the debate.
I had never heard of a debate with three participants, but all three candidates running for House of Representative of the 19th District were there: Phil Avillo, political science professor at York College, was the Democratic candidate; Todd Platts, the Republican incumbent; and Derf Maitland, of the Green Party.
The moderator was Chuck Kennedy, one of Penn State York’s political science professors. In his opening speech, Kennedy said that his students would be grading the candidates’ performance. Avillo said he was glad that York College students from his classes weren’t grading him.
The crowd belonged to Avillo: He got the loudest howls at the opening (Maitland didn’t get any howls), the most applause during the debate, and the largest standing ovation at the end. But many people came with their Avillo shirts and badges already on, so I don’t think Avillo swayed the crowd with his speeches. None of the candidates did.
I hoped to learn new ideas from the candidates’ discussion. But all of the views presented in the debate were the typical Democratic and Republican party lines. Or if that didn’t happen, then all three candidates would portray themselves as holding the same goals and views. Avillo said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. if they pay fines, but Platts said that “we are a nation of laws� and that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be able to get away with breaking the law. Each candidate explained his bipartisanship, said he supported the construction of a better energy policy, and had ideas on health insurance and health care reforms.
But the debate didn’t go any deeper. The candidates didn’t argue over who was right; they just stated their views. There’s nothing wrong with that, but a debate should include some debating. Avillo and Maitland disagreed with Platts on the war in Iraq, and Avillo stressed that “we need to give (the troops there) a mission.� He said nothing about what that mission should be. The only debating came from Platts, who, as the incumbent, had to defend his actions and beliefs.
But I thought Maitland did a good job. Because he’s a third-party candidate, I think he was more open (and a little more controversial) than Platts and Avillo. Maitland probably related best to the average person; he often talked about his coffee shop and bookstore in Hanover.
As one of the people who hadn’t chosen sides beforehand, I was disappointed by the debate. It didn’t help me at all in deciding whom I would vote for (if I were old enough). I am a conservative, so I agreed with some of what Platts said. But Avillo impressed me with his beliefs on bipartisanship. Maitland mentioned vehicles that could get 100 miles per gallon, and he was the only candidate who talked about the national debt. All three candidates were reasonable.
So I thought it interesting when, at the end of the debate, the moderator said that it was unfortunate we couldn’t have three representatives.
Jake Mokris is a home-schooled student and member of the Teen Takeover staff.
It is interesting to read your take on the debate last Tuesday. I was prepared to be wowed by the democrat and green since they certainly have plenty of ammunition. Instead, Platts was the only one who spoke in detail about all of the issues. The other two spoke in generalities. Sure we'd all like to make America the best place to live, improve the economy, end the war, lower gas prices, have cars that get 100 mpg, etc., but just HOW we do that is the problem. Platts knew what he was talking about and he convinced me that he is not in this as a Republican but rather as an American.