Make your voice heard!

Never before have so many people chosen to be silent.

Yes, it is Election 2000, and the political machine that is our electoral process is in full swing.

With less than a week to go to the presidential elections that will determine the first president of the new millennium, people seem to be more apathetic than ever. Estimates have been made that this election year will be the lowest voter turn out on record.

This raises many questions that should concern the voting public.

This election is by no means status quo. The next president will be responsible for taking the reigns of our turbulent economy, managing the ever-developing Middle East land mine, and appointing up to four new Justices to the Supreme Court.

The problem seems to be two-fold. First of all, neither candidate seems to be a definite win for the presidency. Neither of the candidates is a gleaming beacon of virtue, nor are their policies and plans without problems.

George W. Bush has questionable tax reform, environmental and educational policies, while the stigma of making the rich, richer always follows any Republican candidate.

Al Gore, inventor of the Internet and discoverer of Love Canal, has issues regarding promise-keeping, government and military spending and some questionable ethics on campaign contributions.

Both candidates have spent the entire campaign moving toward the middle of the road on issues, with notable differences on the issues of gun control, health-care and education. It almost seems as though the two candidates have merged into one. If the black suit, white shirt and red tie combo that both Gore and Bush decided to wear to the debates wasn’t obvious enough, then their apparent lack of conflict in the first two encounters showed that “Gorsh” had become two almost- undistinguishable candidates.

Bipartisanship, politics-as-usual and the two-party system has completely made us prisoner to a system that was never designed to do such a thing. When people choose between Gore or Bush, even though they do not like their policies, they are simply choosing the lesser of two evils. That is not a choice.

The idea of democracy is to make a choice regarding the candidates who have risen above all others to show they stand for the most issues that are important to the American people, not what a political party or interest group thinks. The list is then narrowed down to two or three and then on election day, the people make a choice.

President Washington in his farewell address made it a point to stress the need to avoid political parties. It may be very idealistic of me, but our system can be this way.

People need to start believing again that they can make a difference. However, the truth of the matter-and our second problem-is that when it comes to the presidential elections, the American public does not decide whom the next President of the United States will be.

That is the job of 538 appointed individuals in the Electoral College. They are the entity who casts the true ballots that are opened and counted on Jan. 6, to determine our new head of state.

Some will counter that the popular vote and the electoral vote always come out with the same victor. However, there have been 15 presidential elections where the new commander-in-chief was opposite of the popular vote. The most recent being in `92 and `96, when President Clinton never received a true majority of the popular vote, but received an overwhelming majority of electoral votes. This is an issue that is very pressing, especially since this race is a dead-heat.

The problem does not just start there. Very few states allow the people to appoint their electors, rather they are selected during conventions or party rallies.

Each state gets the number of electors equal to their number of senators and representatives in Congress. Only a handful of states even include the names of the electors on the ballot.

Along with this predicament comes the fact that each state is winner-take-all. If any candidate gets a simple majority, he or she therefore gets the entire state’s electoral votes.

States with only seven electoral votes are nominal compared to a state like California, which has 54 electoral votes, the largest in the country. This comprises 20 percent of the Electoral College votes needed, making California one of six or seven of the largest “swing states” where the candidates campaign heavily.

This virtually eliminates the potential for a third party to have a realistic chance at election.

Even if the candidate gets an electoral vote or two, they will get swept up into whatever majority candidate the electors vote. This election has brought out Ralph Nader as a strong third-party candidate, but his exclusion from the debates, and the inequities of the college will eliminate his chances at the presidency.

It is discouraging when people are led to believe they have a voice, only to have it washed away by a partisan election. The biggest effect that will be seen is on the younger voters whose growing dissatisfaction with the system will be shown not by the vote, but by the lack of voting.

So, since Gore and Bush are both being unfavorable candidates to many voters, it leaves people little choice. However, alternative candidates like Green Party’s Ralph Nader and the Independent Party’s James Buchanan, give young and disillusioned voters the illusion that they may be able to make a change by voting for a candidate they truly support.

The system is not set up to help the naive or the underdog. The Electoral College has been set up to be an election by the few and not by the masses.

It is time to take a good look at the process we have set in place for electing our president. Alternatives that have been suggested are having the popular vote be the deciding factor, or to overhaul the Electoral College.

The presidential election is such a large issue that it is tough to simply let the entire public decide, since all the voters are not necessarily being “informed.”

However, the Electoral College is an antiquated process that silences alternatives and makes a mockery of our political system.

Perhaps a hybrid system of the two, or some completely new process, is needed. Until that time, let democracy rule and let “We the people” actually choose what and who should be leading this country into the new millennium.