Voters are subjected to the constant churn of politicians' social media postings and slick ads of dubious accuracy. One of the few places where they can still see politicians stand on their own, defending their ideas and revealing their personalities without hiding behind all of the slick packaging, is on the debate stage.

Unfortunately, the major parties' leading candidates in this year’s race for Rhode Island governor seem to think it is beneath them to debate their primary election opponents. Or perhaps more to the point, they think it is not in their interest.

Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, and Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, a Republican, have chosen to play it safe by mostly avoiding debates. Their attitude seems to be: the public be damned.

No matter how well-rehearsed the candidates may be, debates often present the best opportunity for voters to see those who would serve them in a live, anything-can-happen setting. In such settings, they are often forced to discuss topics they would rather avoid, but which are important matters for public debate. Voters can see and hear the interaction, which could lead them to draw conclusions they would never get from a glossy mailer or a prime-time TV ad.

Governor Raimondo, for her part, has refused to debate her Democratic challengers ahead of the Sept. 12 primary election. Asked why, she said last month that she would debate them if she believed “that it’s a good strategy for us.” Not long after that, she ruled out the possibility, saying one of those challengers, former Secretary of State Matt Brown, is “running a very dishonest campaign” and “he lies.”

Mayor Fung agreed to one debate on a low-watt radio station, entering into what some said was a friendly setting for him, but he has refused to take part in others with his Republican opponents, including his strongest challenger for the nomination, House Minority Leader Patricia Morgan.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Raimondo and Mr. Fung have come under fire for doing the public this disservice. Many Rhode Islanders would like to hear what these candidates have to say, beyond the attacks and half-truths so often heard in candidates' ads and sound bites.

How would they make Rhode Island a place where businesses could thrive and create jobs, producing the tax revenues to support the state's generous social services?

What would they do to improve the state’s public schools, which shamefully deny poor and minority students the education they will need to get ahead in our society?

What would they do about Rhode Island's sky-high property taxes?

How would they bring down the price of energy that has skyrocketed in recent years?

How would they reform Rhode Island government to make it more responsive to the public interest rather than the politicians'?

Obviously, front-running candidates believe avoiding debates is a good strategy. By saying no, they avoid gaffes and prevent their opponents from sharing the big stage.

But in putting these selfish interests first, they put the public interest second. It is not too much to ask politicians every four years to discuss and debate issues for the benefit of those they are supposedly seeking to represent.

How about it, Ms. Raimondo and Mr. Fung?

More from the Editorial Board: The Insiders