Column:

Fuhrer revamps the polling process

By Andrea Fuhrer

Published Oct. 24, 2008

For five years of my junior high and high school careers, I was one of many participants in Missouri YMCA Youth in Government. MoYIG is a program that allows students from all over the state to come together for three days each year to take over our state's Capitol with our own mock government. Participants wear suits, write bills, try cases, pass legislation and elect officials from the cushy seats in the Missouri House of Representatives and Missouri Senate. Everything is set up to mirror real government as closely as possible.

And, like real politics in America, there was a serious problem with our voting system at MoYIG.

To run for office, one has to first be elected at one of three district meetings: East (i.e., St. Louis), West (i.e., Kansas City) or Central (i.e., no one). From there, students represent their districts at the state convention. But with district representation, students didn't vote for a candidate who had beliefs similar to their own. Most of the time we didn't even know what the candidates believed at all. Instead, kids voted for their friends, the candidate from their side of the state or for whomever they deemed "hott." Needless to say, this was a flawed system. Since 1950, approximately 57 percent of MoYIG's governors have been from the Eastern district, while only 11 percent have been from the Central district. But students and coordinators recognized this problem and in 2007 it was completely overhauled.

I think it's time Americans realize that our voting system is in serious need of an overhaul as well.

I might not be the most politically savvy American out there. Like most college students, I feel like I'm forced to pack 30 hours of work into each 24 hour day, and when I actually get some free time it's unlikely that I'll spend it researching politics. But I don't want to be an uninformed voter. I won't vote for candidates based on their appearance, their likeability or even their political party affiliation, because I don't think any of those things relate to a person's ability to lead our nation.

But I know not everyone shares this conviction, especially in this day and age, when elections are so heavily influenced by media attention. So I've devised a plan to eliminate uninformed voting.

On the next ballot, we won't have the candidates listed by their names or by their political party, we'll have them listed by their platforms. Want to vote for a candidate who is anti-abortion rights? Easy. Want to vote for a candidate who supports increased gun control? Done. Want to vote for a candidate because he or she is African-American, or because she's a woman? Too bad, you can't - unless you know which issues that candidate stands for. Finally, we could have everyone voting for the issues, not for the people backing them.

Sure, this new system of voting wouldn't be flawless. The ballot will be much longer, and we might have to cut down a few more trees to produce it, but at least it can tell you which candidate will help plant trees to replace them. And at least we'd be keeping irresponsible voters off the streets and out of our polling places.

And if this strategy doesn't work, then I say we mandate that you vote for whichever candidate you think is the hottest.