The University of Idaho Argonaut

At the moment, most Americans with a weakness for politics are devoting their attention to the presidential campaigns and primary elections.
In the midst of all the attention that the candidates are receiving, we sometimes forget that we have an acting president still in the White House. However, our beloved incumbent got a bit of attention when he gave his seventh State of the Union address. In the breaks between the incessant outbursts of applause that tend to afflict all such addresses, President Bush frequently mentioned “trusting the American people.” He used the phrase when referring to several issues including tax cuts, education, healthcare and energy.

Of course, no one is going to contradict this concept directly, but is our country’s highest ideal to trust the people? How does this principle apply to the election underway? Although we may disagree on the issues President Bush mentioned, I think that virtually everyone, when asked if we should apply this principle in our presidential elections, would respond “Of course. Elections are all about trusting the people with the decision.”

This is partially true. In November we will hold the best-informed election in the world. We present the voters with as much information as possible and then give them complete freedom to choose whichever candidate they deem best. Though some complain about how long the election process is and how early it starts, its length and intensity draw out most everything we would care to know about the candidates, their beliefs, their backgrounds and their personalities. When November arrives, we should have a pretty clear picture of who the people on the ballot are, and we can choose between them as conscience dictates.

However, in large part, the reason our election system is so good is that it doesn’t just trust the people. The caucuses, debates and extended campaigns outlast temporary swings in public opinion, and they severely test the candidates in ways other than direct primary results.
Early primaries in small states test the candidates’ charisma and personableness; larger states test the candidates’ broader appeal, organization, and financial viability; debates test the candidates’ intelligence, knowledge, and speaking abilities; and relentless attacks, public criticism, and media coverage test the candidates’ endurance and good humor.

Rudy Giuliani tried to bypass the smaller states for the larger ones, but then lost in Florida. Fred Thompson tried to make due with humor in debates, but cannot be taken seriously. And Dennis Kucinich is demonstrating again that without charisma, organization, financial support, and broad appeal, a campaign will not even get noticed. Even the length of the campaign helps, as is does not permit candidates to win based on short-term popularity surges and makes it difficult to hide information.

The direct election takes the decision directly to the American people, but before we step into the voting booth, we will have already narrowed the field from 300 million down to two. The election just eliminates one more. Some would say that the campaigns should be shorter, the early primaries shouldn’t get so much attention and the election should be determined by direct popular vote, but the process we have is much more complicated than a one-time opinion poll, and with good reason. It may not be as purely democratic as we like to think, but it gives us better results.

With all this in mind, take advantage of our long, cumbersome, and sometimes annoying system. Be informed, watch debates (on both sides), see past trivialities that get too much press coverage, and don’t be fickle.
And remember, “Democracy is when people get the government they deserve.”