It seems like just a couple of months ago a column appeared in this space about the importance of voting and how every vote counts. Since then, I probably don’t have to tell you, a lot has happened, including what appears to be about the closest and most hotly disputed Presidential election in anyone’s memory.

In light of that, it seems to me to be a good time to try to make some larger points that apply pretty much equally to local and state, as well as national, elections and the process through which we govern ourselves.

Sign up for our newsletter

* indicates required

For one thing, it can’t be a good thing for the process to be so heavily dependent on raising such huge sums of money. It seems like every time some half-a-loaf effort is made towards campaign finance reform, creative minds set to work to find a way around it. You know the drill — soft money, issue ads, bundling of contributions to avoid individual limits and other neat tricks. Whether it’s a hundred million to run for President or fifty or a hundred thousand for a Council seat, it costs too much to run, and it shouldn’t.

Most politicians will tell you that raising money is the worst part of the job, and it invariably creates an image of undue influence and more access than the average citizen has. Much of this money goes for paid media, especially television. Often, an entity like public TV will offer free airtime for debates or panel discussions but, at least in local races, how many people really watch these? Apparently, many candidates believe that you get more bang for your buck in a 30 or 60 second hatchet job on your opponent, although, of course, one person’s lying smear is another person’s telling it like it is.

The chat shows, instead of educating the public, consist mostly of overpaid pundits hollering at each other about trivialities. Free TV time offered by the national networks might be an answer, but why would they be interested when they can sell the time instead? Our politics will always be subject to cynicism until we have serious campaign finance reform.

Which leads me to negative advertising.

Poll after poll of the citizenry claims that the voters are turned off by negative advertising. Of course, candidates and their allies continue to use it for one simple reason — it appears to work. It’s sort of a vicious circle — your opponent goes negative first, so of course you have to respond. Pretty soon, instead of the focus being on why you’re such a great candidate and how brilliant your ideas are, you’re having to explain that not only is your opponent lying about your record, but that he or she is a mendacious and unprincipled baboon. While this may make for mildly entertaining, if cheap, theater, it doesn’t do much to educate the voters or foster real public policy debate.

And how about those issue ads?

They always seem to be brought to you, purely in the public interest, of course, by an innocuous-sounding outfit called something like “Citizens For a Really Fabulous Economy” or something similar, which makes their undoubtedly ideological ax to grind pretty much hidden from the average voter’s view. At least the ones brought to you by those fine folks at America’s Pharmaceutical Giants, or whatever, give you a clue that there may just be a little self-interest involved.

Then we have the “debates” foisted on us every election cycle. The current format in vogue seems to be as follows: bizarre question from a smug media-type followed by Candidate A’s canned response to the question he really wanted to answer, including an outrageous assertion about Candidate B, followed by Candidate B doing the same thing, with our know-it-all media interlocutors seemingly incapable of understanding that not only did no-one answer the question, but appearing to think that anything coming out of the candidates’ mouths is immune from challenge.

And don’t even get me started on the Internet, which seems to consist of tens of millions of people who believe anything that pops up on their monitor screens, as long as it fits with their preconceived notions.

Voting is great, and necessary, but what I’m suggesting is that we all need to sharpen our critical thinking as informed citizens, and be well-informed consumers of the information put before us. The media and the politicians, with some exceptions, could do a better job of educating us on the issues, but ultimately it is our own personal responsibility to get informed, stay informed and make intelligent choices.