Keeping the candidates honest?

I'm particularly proud of the innovative e-forum created for the European Parliamentary selections. As a repeat Returning Officer, I've gradually reduced the number of physical hustings from nine in 1998, to five in 2003, to four this year. To be blunt, they are incredibly ineffectual, with low turnouts for the most part, take up large amounts of Returning Officer and candidate time, cost valuable money, and are difficult to manage.

I thought that an e-hustings would give more members an opportunity to find out more about the various applicants, allow easier access at more convenient times, and give candidates an opportunity to give detailed, thoughtful answers. Admittedly, interest is fairly low at the moment, but will improve once the ballot papers goes out with the manifestos. The content is quite interesting already, with some lively debate underway in London, in particular, and I encourage you to take part and give the candidates some food for thought.

Returning to the hustings themselves however, I have always wondered when candidates would draw the conclusion that their time would be much more effectively spent on personal canvassing instead. Assuming a candidate has an average of three hours driving time to and from the venue, and spends ninety minutes there, how many people are they effectively reaching? Given that the average attendance was about sixty last time, and you could probably easily telephone that many people in that time, how does the 'cost/benefit analysis' play out? On the other hand, if attendance is better this year, the numbers may shift. Who can tell?...