Ahh, the smells of mud in the air in fall. It must be . . . election season! And in addition to all the scary ads on television with deep voiceovers and black-and-white pictures of candidates, there is another fixture of our recent political era–that of the bemoaning commentator.

Without fail, the pundits and talking heads across the country will talk and puzzle and wonder about the lack of American political participation during election season.

To be honest, this is something to be concerned about. After all, in the 2000 presidential election only around 51 percent of Americans voted. In a country where we pride ourselves on everyone having a say, why are so many people reluctant to vote?

One reason might be that the era of the “Republicrat” is upon us. In other words, because of the lack of strong distinctions between the Democrats and the Republicans, many Americans have no strong inclination toward either side.

Of course there are differences between the two parties, but nowadays it seems that everyone is playing down their differences and emphasizing their moderation (whether real or not).

As a disillusioned Democrat friend said to me, “Since when did liberal become a dirty word?”

Sadly, one of the few outspoken, unabashed liberals in Congress, Senator Paul Wellstone, died last week on the Oct. 25. He fought for the environment, the poor, the unions and was one of the few senators to vote against giving President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq.

He was, as The New York Times put it, “the kind of voice that seemed to have gone out of style more than 30 years ago.” Wellstone was not afraid to speak his mind and do what he thought was best for the people.

More outspoken, determined voices are what is needed to bring back the grass-roots excitement and involvement in American politics.

After all, if 30 years ago more Americans were voting than today, then perhaps we need a return to outspokenness.

The lack of viable alternatives to the status quo is holding more and more people back from voting. After all, if you cannot vote your conscience, then the decision to vote becomes much harder.

In 1996, when Ross Perot ran for president, something remarkable happened–there was a 5 percent increase in voter turnout, to 55 percent. Still not stellar to be sure, but definitely a major upswing in electoral participation from the previous years.

Although the third-party presence cannot be said to account for all of the increase in 1992, it was still an important factor in increasing voter turnout.

For once, Americans felt they had an alternative to the two major parties, an alternative that received 19 percent of the popular vote.

Sure, on the ballot this year there will be the option to vote Libertarian in almost all states (the Libertarians sure know how to get on the ballot), or Green in some states–Missouri being one of them–but it really is a wasted vote.

After all, even the candidates are not really expecting to win, they are there more as a form of protest (and in an election season this tight and with control of Congress up for grabs, a dangerous form of protest). So, even for those who no longer identify with either major party, voting in the third party direction is not realistic.

Perot, an incredibly successful third-party candidate, was able to garner so many votes, not just due to his ability to buy commercial airtime to display his pie charts, but also because he was given the opportunity to speak. Perot was a part of the major presidential debates, while Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate in 2000, was barred from participating (or even attending the debates).

Political parties, whether Libertarian or Green, should be given the opportunity–real opportunity–to present their issues and ideas to the public.

Third parties have ideas that do appeal to people, and the voting public should be allowed to make a real choice as to whom they want to make their decisions. The third-party candidates might not always be successful, but at the very least they could affect the two main parties.

By bringing up ignored issues and points of view, these outside candidates have the ability to force the Democrats and Republicans to acknowledge the unheard voices and divergent opinions within the flanks of their own parties.

So this election, if yet another political pundit voices their concern about the lack of American participation in elections, just talk right back to the television/newspaper/radio and say, “When there is a choice between one bruised apple or the other bruised apple, who wants to make a choice?”

Lubna Alam is a senior studying history.