Honolulu voters go the polls Saturday understandably perplexed when they get to the part that asks them to choose a mayor.

Among the leading candidates, should they go with the incumbent Mufi Hannemann, who slipped into office four years ago by the slimmest of margins? Or should they choose a veteran, Honolulu Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi? Or should they go with Panos Prevedorous, a university professor who wants the election to be a referendum on Hannemann's push for a steel-on-steel rail transit system?

By all accounts, including money, incumbency and name recognition, Hannemann should not have to worry. But that leaves out the lingering concern among many in Honolulu that things are just not going as well as they should.

In that instance, Hannemann has the unfortunate burden of incumbency. As the national and Hawai'i economy turn sour, people will naturally — if unfairly — wonder if the incumbent leadership could have done something about it.

Let's be clear. Neither Prevedourous nor Kobayashi has even the slightest chance of winning the contest for mayor outright on Saturday. Their hope is to keep the incumbent from winning an outright majority so that the campaign will continue on to the general election.

That would give the two challengers a second bite at the apple and a chance to make their case that a change is needed at City Hall.

When the three appeared at a statewide televised debate last week, sponsored by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, KGMB-TV and The Honolulu Advertiser, the lines of the campaign could not have been clearer.

Hannemann, as the incumbent, was put on the defensive from the first opening shot until the closing comments. Prevedouros stuck primarily to his message that Hannemann's beloved steel-on-steel fixed rail transit system would be bad for Honolulu. Kobayashi took a far more personal turn, arguing that Hannemann lacks the temperament or integrity to be mayor of the state's dominant city.

Is that enough to decide an election that will chart the course of Honolulu for at least the next two years? (We say two, because Hannemann is clear he would jump into a campaign for a different office if the right opportunity presented itself). The answer is no.

The best hope for a thoughtful dialogue on Honolulu's future would be for a result that forced a runoff election between Hannemann and one of his challengers. That wouldn't be a happy prospect for the incumbent, who sees no need to spend extra money and energy on a race he will likely win. But it might sharpen and clarify the issues of character and growth options for Honolulu that are part of this campaign. Is that such a bad thing?

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.