When Massachusetts voters go to the polls on Tuesday to elect their next United States Senator, they will not be suffering from a lack of information.

After an unprecedented series of eight debates, the differences between Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and his Republican challenger, Gov. William F. Weld '66, have become almost as clear as the disparities between their alma maters--Yale and Harvard.

Many pundits agree that this unprecedented exposure has been a coup for Bay State voters.

Calling the series of debates "terrific," Nicholas T. Mitropoulos, executive director of the Kennedy School's Taubman Center For State and Local Government says he feels these debates can serve as a model for future campaigns.

Although the political junkies who showed up at all eight of the "blue blood battles" complained of experiencing frequent deja vu in the final confrontations, the repetition served its purpose of informing voters about the candidates.

The series enabled each candidate to sharpen his message and hone his attacks on his opponent, leading to several well-articulated, evenly balanced exchanges.

For the vast majority of voters, who watched only one or two of the contests, repetition was not a serious problem.

"It was definitely productive," says Meg Vaillancourt who covered the debates for the Boston Globe. "You get to see what their priorities really are."

Indeed, it is now clear for what the two men stand.

Over the past seven months, Kerry has positioned himself as moderate Democrat.

He is careful to assure voters of his responsible fiscal practices but stresses his compassion on social issues including education, health care, the environment and welfare.

"What I've been fighting for in the United States Senate is fairness," Kerry said in this week's Faneuil Hall debate.

Weld, a libertarian and former Adams House resident, has run on his gubernatorial record of cutting taxes, fighting crime and restructuring the state's welfare system.

But despite the now-lucid platform of both candidates, some say the debates did not achieve their potential.

Robert Turner, an editorial page editor for The Boston Globe, says he believes that the public missed an opportunity to hear a more exhaustive, issue-oriented discourse.