Treasury exists to serve the interests of the student body and the needs of SU student groups. Unfortunately, its funding choices often fail to reflect student preferences. Events that are poorly attended, or even reviled, are funded too frequently; events that have a great deal of potential are sometimes choked off at inception. The budgeting and appeals processes invariably leave student group leaders frustrated and unsatisfied. In order to better fulfill Treasury’s twin responsibilities to the student body and student groups, I propose the following:

1) Require members to hold a leadership position in an SU student group either before or during their term in office—SU student groups live and die by the funding they receive from Treasury, but sometimes it seems Treasury members are ill-informed about the actual realities of student group operations. For instance, I have seen Treasury partially fund programs without determining whether the sponsoring group will be able to raise the remaining money. I have seen Treasury fully eliminate PR budgets that would have enabled groups to carry out the type of creative advertising necessary for a successful event. I have seen Treasury fund registration fees for students to attend relevant conferences but decline to fund the corresponding airfare. These selective funding decisions often seem arbitrary and impose frustrating, needless barriers on the creativity of student groups.

I strongly believe that students who plan programs or budgets for their own student groups have the clearest understanding of what all groups need. Too often, Treasury members join the body immediately after programs like SU’s leadership pre-orientation, and while these students can be great additions to SU, their lack of experience in the Washington University community is disadvantageous. While this requirement might present some conflicts of interest, treasury members could simply recuse themselves from any discussion about the student groups they lead.

2) Limit the time allotted for discussion of every appeal—Treasury currently has the constitutional ability to set time limits on its deliberations, but it rarely exercises that power. The result is that meetings run long into the night, which is a major barrier for students who contemplate running for a Treasury seat. Worse, the unlimited discussion does not penalize members who repeat points that have already been made. This alienates visitors and potential candidates alike. Because Treasury needs intimate knowledge of the Wash. U. community in order to be effective and genuinely representative, it benefits from having members who are heavily involved around campus. The more active students are in other leadership roles around campus, the more accurately they can predict what events will interest the student body. Yet while busy student leaders have so much to offer Treasury, the perceived burdensome time commitment often dissuades stellar students from running. While thorough consideration of appeals is important and Treasury does need members who take its responsibilities seriously, the inefficiency of the current meeting structure is a problem that needs to be remedied.

3) Reduce the number of seats—during nearly every election cycle, the number of seats up for election exceeds the number of candidates. The lack of competition means that students are unable to make true choices about who will represent them best. The new Treasury election schedule may help increase competition, but it remains unproven. Reducing the number of seats could also help reduce the length of meetings because fewer people would be participating in each discussion. This change could possibly put an unreasonable burden on Treasury members during budget season, when members meet with treasurers from each SU group, but a committee of additional students, chosen by appointment, could easily assist with this responsibility. As a corollary to this proposal, candidate statements should be more thorough and easily accessible in order to help students cast more informed votes.

These are not the only changes that could improve Treasury, nor are these proposals free from their own drawbacks and flaws. They are, however, an attempt to spark a conversation, one that is constructive, positive and specific, about how to make our collective visions for this campus into reality.

Or, at least, so the story goes.

The low turnout is an undisputed fact. Youth voting basically returned to pre-2006 midterm levels, completely bypassing the slight increase in the 2006 midterms and the dramatic rise in 2008. According to an analysis conducted by researchers at the Center for American Progress, voters between the ages of 18-29 years old dropped to 11 percent of the electorate, down from 18 percent in 2008 and 13 percent in 2006. For an age cohort that, according to the Census Bureau, represents about 18 percent of the total population, such regression is disappointing.

And really, anyone who was on campus in both 2008 and 2010 doesn’t need numbers to know that participation dropped radically. I feel a strange mix of nostalgia and regret at the idea that younger readers won’t understand this and that we collectively failed to provide them with the same enthusiastic political climate that we managed to create in 2008. So I suppose you’ll just have to trust that, to upperclassmen, the engagement gap is painfully obvious.

Yet the permanence of this assertion is not yet determined. The truth is that this story is still being written, and we are its authors. Our generation is at a crossroads for political involvement—make the 2010 elections an aberration by engaging ourselves or let others write our political future instead.

If senior citizens remain this country’s most reliable voting bloc, we’ll continue funding Social Security and Medicare at levels that support this generation of elderly but bankrupt the system before we can benefit. We’ll ignore climate change because most voters won’t be around to experience its consequences. Funding for higher education will languish because college students don’t show up. In short, we’ll keep kicking our country’s problems down the generational road for us to deal with once it’s basically too late. I’m sure you love your grandparents, but that doesn’t mean you should let them vote for you.

So back to the atmosphere of 2008. I think what truly disappoints me most about the turnout patterns and results of last week’s election is that I so badly want us to hold onto the hope we felt then. And yeah, I know plenty of you voted for John McCain. But for those who voted for Obama, I believe we had a real sense that our votes represented a turning point, a moment when we were able to take control of our political system and set the country on the course we wanted.

To become disillusioned now would mean to surrender. It would mean admitting that we are powerless to create change and that we were not, after all, the ones we were waiting for. I know that the vitriol and frustration of the past two years has encouraged this feeling. And yet, I don’t want disillusionment to win. Belief is a much more agreeable state of mind. I also think it’s more realistic.

Maybe it’s hard for a generation accustomed to high-speed Internet and its ensuing lightening-fast results to grasp the idea of gradual progress. But even though it now takes 15 seconds to look up the definition of change online, implementation still takes time. And in politics, nothing happens quickly.

The choice is ours. Let’s make sure the book on millennial political involvement is not finished yet.

The voting rolls should have listed them as “inactive voters” on Tuesday.

Inactive voters are those who have not voted recently and may have a change of address.

Inactive status is partially determined by notification cards that the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners sends out over the summer to confirm that registered voters kept their addresses.

Many students’ cards were returned to the Board undelivered because they moved off campus or had a change of address.

When these cards come back to the Board of Election Commissioners, the voters should have been put onto an inactive voter list.

“If we get those notifications cards back here, they’re put on inactive status and all you have to do is when you go to the poll and verify your address [and] you can vote,” Joe Donahue, the Democratic Director of Elections for St. Louis County, said. “We don’t purge them from the lists until we have proof that they have completely changed addresses.”

This did not happen for some students who voted on the South 40 in 2008 and did not re-register to a new address. Instead, they were taken off the voting lists entirely.

“The students say they voted two years ago at Wash. U., so they should be registered. The judge says that over the summer Wash. U. returned a bunch of update cards that the Board of Elections had given out, and they did a dump of all the names,” said Loretta Haggard, a volunteer with the Democratic Voter Protection Effort who was outside Ursa’s on election day. “I think that they should have been put on an inactive list.”

Senior Liz Nylund was in line at the South 40 polling place because she voted there in 2008. She had moved since then, but was hoping that the people working there would help her.

The girl in front of her was in the same situation and had voted on the South 40 as recently as 2009.

“[The supervisors at the South 40 polling place] were trying to find her in the system and they couldn’t find her,” Nylund said of the other girl in line. “They told her she couldn’t vote today.”

If a person is not on any voting lists, they cannot vote anywhere on the day of the election. If students moved off campus since voting on the South 40 in 2008 but stayed in the same district, however, they can vote at another polling place.

At the very least anyone in the system can be given a provisional ballot, but neither Nylund nor the girl in front of her were given one.

The poll workers were told by someone at the Board of Election Commissioners Tuesday morning not to give out any provisional ballots, according to Polly Guth, a supervisor at the South 40 polling place.

These orders were reversed when the poll workers asked again at around 4:30 p.m.

According to Donahue, the Board of Election Commissioners is investigating why no provisional ballots were given out earlier in the day.

“We are doing an investigation of that comment here at our office,” Donahue said.

It is unclear how many voters were denied provisional ballots or turned away without the proper information, but Polly Guth, a supervisor of the polling place on the 40, said that voters who requested a provisional ballot earlier than 4:30 p.m. were denied. Officials indicated that only a small handful of students were turned away at the polls.

“The person this morning who we talked to [on the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners] said no [to giving out provisional ballots] and did not give us a follow-up number,” Guth said.

Student Life attempted to contact the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners throughout the afternoon, but their phone lines were down.

Provisional ballots should be used when a voter’s name does not appear on a precinct’s list of registered voters or if a voter has incorrect or outdated registration information.

No person should be denied access to a provisional ballot unless they have absolutely no proof of identification, according to Denise Lieberman, a Missouri Voter Protection Advocate at the Advancement Project.

“The whole point of provisional ballots is to provide a voting measure of last resort if the voter’s eligibility can’t be confirmed,” said Lieberman, who is also an adjunct professor at the law school and a lecturer in the political science department.

If needed in the election count, provisional ballots are counted the week following the election, after the voter’s eligibility has been determined.

Much of the confusion among voters stemmed from students who had originally registered on the South 40 during the 2008 presidential election and have since moved off campus. The South 40 is no longer the voting location for these voters.

Prior to election day, students should have filled out a change of address form, which were made available at various locations on campus.

If they did not, polling officials at voting sites should have directed voters to the proper voting location where they could fill out a form and vote.

Because students who live off campus in Clayton or University City live in the same voting district as residents of the South 40, they do not need to re-register to vote.

Though the people working at the polling center said that they directed students to their proper polling places, not all students said they were properly redirected.

“They told me that because I had moved off campus and I hadn’t updated my location that I couldn’t vote in this election,” said junior Paula Lauris, who lives north of campus on Washington Avenue in University City and tried to vote on the 40.

Lauris was granted a provisional ballot only after she left the polling center and told a friend about the experience.

Loretta Haggard, an attorney who volunteers with the Democratic Party Voter Protection Effort, overheard the story and made some phone calls.

“Students should be treated like all other people that move. If they move to another precinct, then they should be directed to that precinct to vote,” Haggard said. “They should never have been purged off the rolls.”

Lauris was the first University student to receive a provisional ballot at the South 40 polling place, although she should have been redirected to her proper polling place.

“I saw four people in a row turned away,” said junior Robert Pino, who attempted to vote on the 40 before going to his proper polling station.

Guth said that she was just following orders and understands why some students were upset.

“I know how frustrating it is, and I do apologize, but what they [the St. Louis election board] tell you, you have to do it,” Guth said. “It’s scary when you don’t.”

Student Life reporters attempted to obtain data regarding the use of provisional ballots at the South 40 site, but officials would not release the information.

Lieberman, who was not familiar with the specifics of the situation, said that all polling information—except voters’ personal data and how they cast their vote—is public information that should be released to reporters or any other citizen on site who requests it.

According to the St. Louis County website, there are 1854 voters registered at the South 40. All voters eligible to vote at this location are students or faculty living on the 40.

Minutes before the polls closed, a student reported having the 401st ballot, indicating that approximately 400 students voted at that location.

Editor’s note: Paula Lauris is a managing editor for Student Life.

Audrey Westcott | Student Life

It was at this point that a third person living on my floor decided to enter the discussion by asking, “Wait…what are the Bush tax cuts?”

This isn’t the only situation I could describe in which Wash. U. students are not up to date on the political scene. Fully half of the people I have interacted with in the last week had zero idea that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was up for repeal.

Granted, as a freshman, it is entirely possible that the people I interact with just haven’t become involved in the political scene yet, but I believe my experiences represent something more symptomatic of our generation.

The country knows those of us who are currently under 25 as apathetic and disinterested, and we live up to that expectation. The only time our age group has actually come out in force to vote was in 2008, when we helped elect President Obama. It was believed that we had entered a new age in politics, when the expectations were that the young would be involved in subsequent elections. Yet, even with the midterms on the way (arguably more important than the 2008 election), many young people have lost the inspiration that brought them out to the polls two years ago.

That is not to say that Wash. U. doesn’t have politically involved students. The College Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians all help campaign for candidates, and the Washington University Political Review (WUPR) publishes issues twice a semester. But WUPR, through what would appear to be no fault of its own, goes unread in stacks (you can still find copies of this month’s issue everywhere on campus), and the WUPR/Student Life debate on President Obama’s policies last Tuesday night only had about 60 people in attendance, most of whom were on the staff of either WUPR or Student Life.

There are so many groups on campus that have the potential to take a political stance. Green Action should be campaigning like crazy, if only to make sure someone who denies the existence of climate change doesn’t get elected. Students for Choice should be phone-banking or sending out fliers to guarantee that the next representative for them in Congress supports a woman’s right to choose. Conservative groups should be out there trying to convince people that cutting taxes is the best way to reinvigorate the economy, or at least to elect a representative who won’t pass another stimulus.

Even if they don’t get things done, student groups should be involved in the political scene of their issues. It isn’t enough to just talk about what you want to do; you actually have to go out and try to do it in a way that seriously promotes change. Groups can have noble causes to fight for, but in this country, change really only comes through the ballot.

Our campus should be up to date on every single controversy, and we should have people screaming at each other over every single issue that we find important.

Maybe this lack of political involvement would be acceptable on any other campus. Perhaps I would be more accepting of this level of discourse if I went to Cornell or the University of Michigan. But one of the reasons I decided to come to Wash. U. is because this is supposed to be a political campus.

Every four years our school hosts the people who are just a step away from the presidency of the United States (or in 2008, a step and a heartbeat) so they can debate the issues important to the country. We are not supposed to be just another campus in terms of politics; we are supposed to be more involved, more engaged, more invested. We should be the standard-bearers of political discourse on a college campus if only so that we can live up to the expectations of our generation.

I became a citizen of the United States in June, less than a year ago, and growing up I was always unsure of whether I would ever be able to vote. I could not vote in U.S. elections because I was not a citizen, nor was I certain that I would become one. Furthermore, it had been years since I lived in India, my first country of citizenship, and because I did not plan to move back I would likely not be able to vote there either.

This past summer my family finally relented and acquired dual citizenship because it would make my college experience easier. As we sat in an official U.S. government courtroom in the sweltering June heat, we listened to President Obama welcome us to this new nation from a television screen. His speech was followed by a patriotic country song accompanying a myriad of images of diverse and beaming working Americans from all across the country, which gave me a new tingle of national pride despite its cheesiness. I was excited to be a citizen. I had lived in the U.S. for the majority of my life and was now officially acknowledged as a part of the nation. As a bonus, completing standardized questionnaires would be so much easier now as well.

The year has flown by rapidly, and while I was more excited than usual for the Fourth of July, I otherwise did not give much thought to my new citizenship. The full implications of being a citizen finally reached me this week as I was working on some homework in my floor common room. A dorm-storming group came by to register voters and it took me an embarrassingly long moment to comprehend that, “Yes, I can vote now too!” Filling out a governmental voter registration form was something completely new to me, and something I had begun to doubt I would ever experience. All my life the right to vote had seemed so far out of my reach that I had all together ceased believing I would ever have a voice in any national election process. It therefore felt wonderful to register as a voter in St. Louis County this week, and I hope to never forget the excitement I felt earlier this week, and still do, about my right to vote.

I know my enthusiasm for the electoral process will likely diminish with time, but my adolescent experience of being unsure as to whether I would ever have an electoral voice will always stay with me. I will always make a concentrated effort to make my voice heard because voting is a privilege that took my family and me many years to achieve. The same holds true for you. A reason the American Revolution occurred was that colonists wanted the right to vote on their taxes. Citizens now easily have this right, yet only 51 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 voted in the last presidential election. It took even longer for minority groups and women to gain suffrage, and yet barely half the population makes use of a right our predecessors struggled so long for. As a new citizen, I understand that a large percentage of the student body cannot vote in federal elections, but all students can participate in school elections, particularly since the process is very quick and simple. I highly encourage you to remember that having the right to vote is a privilege that many people have worked very long and hard to achieve, and it is a shame to not make use of our opportunity.

A voter casts her ballot at Wydown Middle School Tuesday afternoon as other booths sit empty. Turnout in St. Louis County was under 20 percent as voters overwhelmingly passed a smoking ban. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

St. Louis County voters approved the smoking ban measure Proposition N by an overwhelming margin in Tuesday’s election, which saw low turnout throughout the county.

The proposition, which passed 65.3 percent to 34.7 percent, will ban smoking in public indoor places in St. Louis County in January 2011, with exemptions for casino floors, private clubs, smoking lounges at St. Louis airport, and some bars. The proposition’s passage also triggers a smoking ban in St. Louis that was passed by the city’s aldermen on Oct. 23.

“We have made a major step forward on cleaner air and obviously a healthy environment for our citizens in the county and city, and hopefully for the whole state in the future,” said County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, who introduced the St. Louis County Council bill that put the smoking ban on the ballot.

Proposition N opponent Bill Hannegan, though disappointed, downplayed the result, saying that “it was always going to be tough in the county” due to its low smoking rate.

Hannegan, who heads the group Keep St. Louis Free, added that “the fight’s not over” and that the opposition could challenge the constitutionality of the casino exemption, bring up a conflict between the two smoking bans and state law, or push to amend the city’s smoking ban.

Campaign leaders reported low traffic at polls throughout the county on Tuesday. Overall turnout was just under 20 percent, which was in line with county election officials’ predictions.

Students turned out in especially large numbers for the November 2008 election, but things were different this time around. Nearly all students when interviewed said they did not turn out to vote, despite most of them saying they supported the measure.

Senior James Mosbacher said it took him “three minutes, max” to cast his vote for Proposition N at his polling place, which he said was virtually empty.

“There was nobody there,” he said. “Absolutely nobody.”

The low turnout underscored the absence of a statewide or federal race on the ballot, an obstacle that campaign leaders attempted to overcome with last-minute mobilization efforts. Leaders from both sides said they called supporters on Tuesday in a final get-out-the-vote push.

Proposition N supporters gathered with posters and signs during the Monday rush hour at five street-side locations, including the intersection of Forest Park Parkway and Skinker Boulevard.

More than 200 Saint Louis University medical students and faculty gathered on their campus on Thursday to rally for the ban.

The Washington University community’s highest-profile supporter of the proposition is Martha Bhattacharya, postdoctoral fellow in developmental biology, who served as treasurer of pro-proposition County Citizens for Cleaner Air. Bhattacharya said last week she encouraged students to vote for the measure.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay even made an appeal on his blog on Monday for county voters to vote for the proposition, writing that the ban “will make St. Louis County restaurants safer for their employees and more pleasant for everyone else.” He also noted that the proposition’s passage would trigger the city’s own ban.

Hannegan said members of the opposition had distributed flyers to bars and restaurants in the days leading up to the election. Bowling alley proprietors also rallied against the proposition in Hazelwood on Saturday.

Most restaurant and bar owners opposed the proposition out of concerns that a smoking ban would violate their property rights and drive their smoking customers to nearby counties that lack smoking bans.

Ban supporters pointed to peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking bans have no negative impacts on business.

Proposition N passed even without the support of some health groups that stayed neutral due to the measure’s exemptions.

In a statement issued shortly after the votes were counted, the St. Louis chapter of the American Cancer Society did not back the smoking ban but said the measure’s passage “confirms that smoke-free laws are uniformly popular with the vast majority of the public and brings critical momentum toward achieving meaningful health protection from secondhand smoke for all people who live and work in St. Louis County.”

“The focus now will be on delivering health protection from secondhand smoke for those workers who still do not have it—those in bars and casinos,” the statement said.

Supporters had long argued that the ban, despite the exemptions, was a good start and was the only ban that would have passed the County Council.

“I would prefer if there were not exemptions, but the bottom line is you need to get something passed,” Stuart Slavin, associate dean for curriculum at SLU School of Medicine, said Monday at the Forest Park-Skinker rally.

Fraser’s bill passed as a result of compromise. The initial bill had no exemptions, but the council voted it down. A later version of the bill with the exemptions passed the council by a 4-3 vote on Aug. 25, following weeks of heated meetings.

The Aug. 4 meeting saw Robert Blaine, medical public policy specialist at the University, urge the council to put on the ballot “as broad and as comprehensive a ban as possible.” The University supported sending the final ban to voters but did not endorse the measure itself.

OTHER KEY RACES

Proposition E-911: YES, 67.7 percent-32.3 percent
A 0.1 percent sales tax increase, revenues from which would go toward upgrading emergency communications equipment in St. Louis County.

Special election, Missouri House 74th District: STACEY NEWMAN (D) 61.3 percent, DANIEL O’SULLIVAN (R) 38.7 percent
Special election in the 74th Missouri House District to fill the seat formerly occupied by Democrat Steve Brown, who resigned the seat on Aug. 25 after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

Special election, Missouri Senate 4th District: JOE KEAVENY (D), unopposed
Special election in the 4th Missouri Senate District to fill the seat formerly occupied by Democrat Jeff Smith, who also resigned on Aug. 25 after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

Countywide turnout: 19.55 percent
Source: http://www.co.st-louis.mo.us/elections/

See, here’s the thing. First, I’m pretty sure you’re not paying a whole lot of taxes right now. So they’re not “your” tax dollars. Maybe they’re your parents’ tax dollars. Maybe I’m making a mistaken assumption and you’re completely independent of your parents, paying your own taxes. If that’s the case, I apologize. And of course, you have every right to have a say as to how you’d like your taxes to be spent.

Even if, however, you are paying a significant amount of taxes, I still have a problem. Tax policy just isn’t enough. Do you own a corporation? No. But I bet you have a female friend. Or a gay one. Or a black one. I bet you appreciate the environment. I bet that you or someone close to you went to a public school. I bet your grandparents benefit or have benefited from social security. I bet you have an appreciation for science, knowledge and research that keeps us competitive in the international arena. If you really care about conservative fiscal policies, vote for Ron Paul, not for John McCain.

Republicans aren’t about taxes anymore. They cater to the religious right. They want government to legislate bedroom “morality.” They want to devour the line that separates Church and State. They ban books and disenfranchise minorities. They claim to want small government, except when it comes to the military. That they want very big. They want to dig for oil as if it were a part of a long-term solution to the current energy crisis. It’s not. They come up with euphemisms to make coal sound clean, safe and fun. It isn’t any of those things. Neither is nuclear power. Just ask any reputable scientist about how we can get rid of nuclear waste, or just how clean “clean” coal is. They won’t have a logical answer for you, because there isn’t one. Those policies are the policies of a disgraced administration and party that has lost its true conservatism.

I care about collecting the DNA of bears in Montana, because I understand the implications of the program for the long-term survival of the grizzly bear (and all the creatures connected to its fragile ecosystem). I care about gay rights and a woman’s right to choose. I care about kids from inner-city Baltimore. I’m going to be okay with paying a little bit more in taxes when I have a high-paying job because this country has given me so much, and I know that the opportunities available to me are available to few others.

This election is about so much more than taxes. Even if it were about taxes, I’d still vote for the Democrats. In this day and age where government deals with so much more than just taxes, why are you going to limit your horizons? For all you RFROs (Republicans-for-fiscal-reasons-only), stop feigning ignorance while your party continues to attack the environment, education and minority rights.

If you’re going to support your party, support the whole thing. Otherwise, vote for a third party. One that focuses on taxes. Or you could be a Democrat. I promise you: We care about way more than taxes. We’d love to have you.

function clearField(el) {
if (el.value == el.defaultValue) el.value = ”;
}

function resetField(el) {
if (el.value == ”) el.value = el.defaultValue;
}

Last week, however, Wash. U.’s general abstinence from this type of environment was broken in a rather magnanimous fashion. The vice presidential debate submerged the campus in a buzz and energy that must have left ESPN’s favorite institutions teeming with envy. At times, it felt like the school was almost overflowing with cameras, television personalities and general debate-related euphoria. On the rare occasions I wasn’t engaged in the spectacle at hand, I couldn’t help but consider how different things might be if the mood generated by the debate were the norm rather than the extreme, entirely circumstantial exception. What if the nation at large, not just the populace of Wash. U., were constantly excited about politics to the extent that our campus was last Thursday? What if the country were to treat politics like it currently treats athletics?

I can only assume that this hypothetical would depart from the current reality in certain very tangible and very positive ways.

The city in which I was brought up is home to a university with Division I athletics. This particular university’s football team spent the early part of the decade in a position of national prominence. They were talented, entertaining and, for a five- or six-year stint, very successful. Toward the end of this string of successes, the football team’s coach resigned in order to accept a coaching position in the NFL. Since the coach’s departure, the university’s team has back-slided its way to mediocrity and a near-.500 record. Virtually everyone in the city is engaged enough in the university’s athletics to have a personal take on the football team’s recent struggles. Individuals who would likely be unable to tell you the names of the vice presidential nominees can espouse a relatively thorough argument as to the misgivings and solutions for the new coach’s incompetence. I can only imagine how different things might be in socio-political terms if this energy and focus were transposed from football onto politics or other social causes.

As people become more engaged in and educated about any particular thing, their ability to analyze and understand that subject grows exponentially. If people simply spent more time around politics and social dialogue, it seems only natural that their ability to interpret and influence these things would grow as well.

If instead of watching college football on Saturday afternoon, the citizenry of my hometown read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, they would be as capable of speaking out against political figures as they are football coaches. I honestly believe that a good portion of the social and political issues which have recently befallen the country are due in large part to an unquestioning follow-the-leader type syndrome. On a number of levels, our nation’s politicians have led the country while the people blindly follow and end up in an unfortunate position. The simple remedy for this ill is a more educated and engaged constituency.

It’s in the best interest of our country, specifically the individuals of which it’s comprised, to engage in politics as fully as possible. I acknowledge entirely that this cannot, and never will, manifest itself in an omnipresent vice presidential debate-type atmosphere. Nor would I ever argue that the country should in fact drop athletics in lieu of some newfound political zeal. I would, however, encourage people to spend halftime of their favorite team’s next game watching CNN instead of commercials.

I grew up in University City, and more than 90 percent of my high school peers were from liberal families like mine. I have been raised to believe that economic limitations hinder the possibilities of success for kids and that it is our duty, along with our government’s, to try and level the playing field. I am a strong pro-choice supporter and I believe that God is not offended by condoms or birth control. I believe it is time to change the way we live in order to treat our world and all of its inhabitants better.

At the presidential debate on Thursday, I saw an unambiguous winner (although I don’t like to think of it on those terms). Biden was clear, focused, personable, intelligent, straightforward and, without a doubt, he proved to me that he would be 100 percent capable of taking over our country should the opportunity arise. I sat in Edison Theatre surrounded by liberal minds like mine, and we smiled when Biden used data to back up his statements, when he said something profound and also when Palin repeated herself, stumbled and failed to give answers we deemed appropriate.

There were, however, Palin supporters in the mix too. They proudly and courageously wore their elephant shirts and sat among the “enemy,” watching our smiles (and sneers), and seeing something entirely different from what the rest of us saw. After all, McCain/Palin supporters say that she won without a doubt.

I’ve always been interested in why people make the choices that they do. Mostly, I wonder if I am merely a product of my childhood and genes. Did I only see Biden as the victor on Thursday night because that’s how everyone I know saw him? Did the McCain supporters see what they wanted or needed to see rather than what was right in front of them?  Would I have been able to walk out of that theater admitting Biden’s defeat regardless of what happened on that stage? I hope so.

All of this was passing through my head during the debate, and I wanted to leave knowing that my biases didn’t completely prevent me from seeing clearly—that I gave Palin a chance. I think, as far as I could have been, I was successful. Palin is personable, smart and funny, and I believe she is truly invested in the American people. I also think that, for someone who has been thrust into this political arena, she has held herself together admirably—but she is not who I want for a leader.

In the post-debate aftermath everyone scrambles for their favorite quotes, usually choosing the snippiest comments. To me, there was one moment that resonated beyond any other. It was when Biden shared a lesson he learned from Mike Mansfield.

Mansfield told him, “Joe, understand one thing. Everyone’s sent here for a reason, because there’s something in them that their folks like. Don’t question their motive.” Biden then told us, “I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I’ve disagreed. I’ve questioned their judgment.” As a U.S. citizen who has grown weary of those snippy comments, for me this was one of the most profound moments of the night.

I’ve thought a lot about this comment since Thursday and how I should interpret the subtle relationship between judgment and motive. I think Biden was saying that you can’t question why a person is in public office, or question whether they are motivated by greed or self-aggrandizement. Instead, we can only look at the decisions they make while they have that power, and whether the decisions they make are the best for our country.

I think the time of snide remarks and pathetic attempts at mean humor should end, or at least decrease their volume; we should stop trying to degrade the “other” side; we should think more for ourselves and rest less on what our parents and friends think; and finally, as Joe Biden said so well, we need to stop questioning each other’s motives. I will venture to say that close to all Americans want what is best for our country—we just differ on how to get there—and that should be the focus of politics.