Since Jan. 3, 2003, Tom Latham has represented Ames in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now that another census has been taken and Iowa’s congressional districts redrawn, we know Latham will no longer represent us there. This November, the people of Ames and north-central and northwestern Iowa will have a choice between Rep. Steve King, a Republican, and Christie Vilsack, a Democrat.

The campaigns hoped to have nine debates, but now that number will be one less than originally hoped for. Reports from the King campaign and the Sioux City Journal say the sponsors of the debate in Ames, which was set for Sept. 22, canceled the event.

They did so because King could not agree to the terms, which included questions from citizens of the Fourth District and a debate that was free and open to the public with “a certain number of reserved seats for each campaign.” The cancellation apparently stemmed from King’s insistence on using the Lincoln/Douglas style.

In any election cycle, it is imperative constituents become acquainted with the men and women who want to represent them. If he wins, King will represent the people of 18 of his former 32 counties in addition to the people living in 21 new counties, representing nearly 405,000 Iowans he has not yet represented during his five terms in Congress, almost 90,000 of whom live in Story County.

When Mr. King goes to Washington to represent them, he will have to interact with other politicians.

Because that is the nature of his job, his future constituents deserve to see him interact with another wannabe politician. In this case, that person is Christie Vilsack. While the blame for the debate cancellation does not lie solely with anyone — neither King, nor Vilsack, nor the debate’s sponsors, among them the Ames Tribune and ISU Committee on Lectures — any debate format in which the candidates will have to respond to one another is better than none at all.

Not everything is predictable. No situation can be completely scripted, and if it can, it is not political, but rather a farce designed to entertain. Politics is characterized by some degree of uncertainty. A true politician looks forward to any opportunity, regardless of its magnitude, to confront the unknown. Like playing the stock market, the rewards are highest when the risks are highest.

Every election cycle, due to society’s inability to choose better candidates these days, voters are faced with a choice between two evils. As a result, they must choose the lesser of the two. But compromise we must, and one of them must still be chosen. During their campaigns, candidates ought to do the same: For the sake of debating at all, they both should compromise their own preferences and ideals and serve their constituents well.