Susie, I suspect that much of what we call apathy is frustration, anger and resentment at the uselessness of voting for political hacks. Sometimes, a polarizing issue, as in the last election, pushes us to try to make our presence felt, but the effects are short-lived.
I think the quadrennial search for polarizing issues and the nonsensical hoopla that surrounds the related proclamations is destructive; Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing".
Prior to voting in the most recent election, did we carefully consider the revision of the law on personal bankruptcy? Wouldn't it have been better if we based our decision on whether those we elected could be trusted to legislate for the benefit of our citizens rather than for the commercial interests whose money allowed them to muddle us with "issues"?
Your next to last sentence says it all: "... and rarely do we get a true picture of our candidates." This is a fundamental matter we should consider. How can the election process be structured so we can get a true picture of our candidates?
Chu's lie detector would be nice. How, exactly, will we pass a law to make it mandatory? How can we be sure the law contains no loopholes? How will we know those who administer the test do so honestly? The people we want to test are the very people who'll write the law. Will it be any less a sieve than our present ethics proclamations?
Dishonest people pass dishonest laws.
Fred
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
