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.

Therein lies my critique of Tess’s column. The hypocrisy ascribed to my statements (that I would wait in line for Chipotle but not for voting) is no doubt deduced from my bombastic tone and loudly contentious attitude. I apologize to Tess for my lack of manners during the event she accurately recollects. I constantly have to remind myself that speaking loudly against the grain is neither endearing nor persuasive. However, I must defend resistance (c.f. Brian Dorne’s Oct. 3 column, “The conscious non-vote,” for a related view on this).
Though Tess rightly opposes the thoughtless non-participation I promoted during Chipotle Day, she erects a straw man argument by reducing my dissent to apathy. Therefore I must put forth an altered argument, espousing meaningful resistance rather than the indolent rebellion.

To begin with, the substance of my polemic is against the electoral system, not against the premise of voting. I am vigorously opposed to the appropriation of my vote to legitimize the election of a candidate who I will most assuredly not support. Thanks to the Electoral College’s methodology, in virtually every state one candidate walks away with each voter’s voice. This gives the victor a greater share of legitimacy (the more people who vote, the more significant is the majority of the population who voted for him). Simply put, that someone whose platform I abhor may receive even the paltry authentication of my vote is appalling. This leads me to the general conclusion that our “bipartisan” government receives undue legitimacy from inherently uncritical electoral participation.

That being said, I must agree with Tess that “political issues are not abstract—they get at you on a personal level, they affect almost every arena of your life.” However, I realize that legitimizing the system is not always the answer. Voting is not the “little taste of all those American rights and freedoms” that she’s “heard so much about,” especially if the choice is coercive, a constructed selection of one of two supposedly different candidates (c.f. Randy Brachman’s ironic Oct. 1 column, “How the cookie crumbles”). The false dialectic we are presented with operates on the supposition that by all voting in a two-party system, we can somehow promote a synthesis (read: bipartisanism) between the two poles. Our democratic process ostensibly seeks to attain a compromise that moves us toward an approach to government that is simultaneously progressive and traditionally sound. Our system tells us that we can reach a conclusion that rises above the destructive tension between Democrats and Republicans.

Yet, as Theodor Adorno states so succinctly, “Freedom of choice means the freedom to choose your ideology.” The problem lies in the fact that our system demands
unquestioning obeisance to the tenets of American dreams and ideals: The only difference between the parties is the path taken to this mutually stated utopia. This is why we cannot productively move our society beyond pure ideology and promote realistic approaches to governance, and why the bipartisan “dialectic” is detrimental to democracy. It is impossible for dynamic tension to exist in a unipolar political system.

My indignation is real and my refusal to participate is conscientiously justified. How can we so emphatically demand participation in a system that excludes minor party candidates and marginal voices? How can we blithely invest our voices in support of a system that heaped vituperation on Ralph Nader for Al Gore’s loss in 2000? Why is anyone who does not want to vote characterized as a lazy and unproductive iconoclast? Finally, why is it anathema to express discontent with the coercive, false choice that we are given?

I defend the “exuberance” with which Tess describes my defiance. I am hopeful when I violate the norms of the electoral process. By emphatically rejecting the false dilemma set forth by our bipartisan political system, I subscribe to a means of political progress through effective negation, even if it remains a subjective endeavor.

I will cast my vote, or refuse to participate, depending on where my issues lie and not where ideological pressure attempts to pigeonhole me.

However, in this article I seek not to address voter registration, Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin, horserace journalism, the vice presidential debates, the politically-motivated evils of the Democratic Party, the politically-motivated evils of the Republican Party…you get the idea. Instead, I hope to address and hopefully alleviate the grievances toward a small but sometimes vocal minority this election cycle: the Conscious Non-Vote. This is a voter who seeks not to vote for any candidate in the general election through an informed decision.

For the politically inclined on campus, it may seem blasphemous that someone isn’t voting for Obama or McCain. But, in our two-party, winner-take-all-of-the-white-house electoral system, it is important to note that the two broad-based parties capable of winning do not represent the concerns and values of all registered American voters. And while I’m not going to debate the merits of a multiple-party system or any other voting system in this country, I WILL argue that our present system does not support the voice of all opinions. So please stop yelling at the people who voice their opinion by choosing not to vote for either of your candidates.

Some may argue, “But Brian, I don’t like either candidate 100 percent but I’m still voting for who I want to run the country more! This is important stuff! This is the future!”

However, there is still a notable minority of voters who feel that simply because they prefer one of the two potentially victorious candidates over the other, they cannot consciously give a vote of confidence toward either candidate’s platform. These people are completely validated in their action. Do not berate them and pester them for making an informed decision.

Yet, I would encourage those who seek not to vote for a candidate in the hysteria of our general election cycle to look at the ballot closely and decide if there are state or local issues that they feel strongly about and vote for them. Don’t let the overriding focus our political media places on McCain vs. Obama deter you, the Non-Voter, from voicing your opinion on other issues also on the ballot. Your right to vote is a privilege that begets you a certain amount of responsibility to make an informed and conscientious choice; don’t limit that privilege by only taking a stand on the most covered issue.

As for both the McCain and Obama supporters, a few words of advice: while I would discourage you to take in this election as a political sport or competition in the way our 24-hour news cycle does, don’t let anyone deride you for your informed political choices. Your voice is your own and it should be only yours, free from the tyranny that sometimes leaks into popular opinion. With this in mind, remind yourself that as this electoral marathon sprints to a close those folks on the other “team” may hold voices and opinions just as strong as your own. So before you greet them with bile, try to do so with respect or tact first.

He explained to his squirmy companion that her vote would surely be canceled out immediately after she cast it—said it wouldn’t even make a difference. He told her the candidates are all the same anyway.

If I were a more confrontational person, I might have said something instead of just rolling my eyes and muttering under my breath. But I can imagine asking Chipotle guy how he could wait in line for free food but not line up for the biggest opportunity to use that voice he seemed to love so much.

Sure, my vote is going to be canceled out. The same roommates who waited in that burrito line with me will probably be waiting in line with me at the polls. I’m for Obama; they’re for McCain. Canceled, just like that. It would actually make some kind of sense for me and one of them just to stay behind, paint our nails and save the time and trouble of voting. But we’re all going. We’ll all be there standing in line, even without the promise of free food.

It’s not that I think my vote is going to decide the election. I guess I’m voting for the taste of it—a little taste of all those American rights and freedoms I’ve heard so much about. Together we can perhaps avoid eight years of the wrong leader. Or maybe not. But I really do care, and saying you don’t—saying you’ll take a pass on voting day—is worse than lame; it’s just plain lazy (you heard me Chipotle guy: I think you’d rather be napping than voting—way to stand up to the man).

Political issues are not abstract—they get at you on a personal level, they affect almost every arena of your life. You can think of voting as a statement: You’re saying, yes, you’ll break your routine and even wait in long, obnoxious lines to help make your country a better place. You’d do it for a burrito, so of course you’ll line up to choose the new leader of the free world. You are free to make decisions that are bigger than yourself. A new president, or, let’s say, global warming—these are challenges so huge, they make you feel tiny. You think, “Why would I turn off my light or recycle this cup when I know that guy isn’t going to do it? What’s the point?” But you are free to choose to be greater and more powerful than you feel.

You have to ask yourself: Do you really want to stand by while more people vote for American Idols than for an American president? Like the Chipotle guy waited almost an hour for a free burrito (and spent almost that long talking about not voting)? Of course, he’s free to choose not to vote. But if you don’t vote, you have absolutely no right to complain. And c’mon, we’re college students—complaining is what we do best. See you at the polls.

DoAPoll.com, a Web site created over the past year by a development team consisting of two Washington University students, a student from MIT and others, is a forum for visitors to vote on topics that interest them.

The polls are user-generated, and the decisions of which polls get featured on the site’s front page are based on how users rank them.

Aaron Bock, a first-year MBA student in the Olin Business School and founder of the Web site, says he and the other developers came up with the idea for the site last fall after it occurred to them that similar sites, such as Reddit.com—which has visitors vote on user-posted links, lacked a key feature.

“We thought it would be cool to add a new dimension to [sites like Reddit] to allow people to create a question along with the link, or just be able to ask the question and have people vote on different options,” Bock said. “It drives a better discussion.”

Bock and the other site creators began working on the site last winter, and recently launched it in its final form.

Senior Christine Board, a communication design major in the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts and another one of the site’s developers, said that the Web site’s creation process was a positive experience.

“It’s not every day that you get an opportunity to be involved with something like this, something that has a good idea behind it and a lot of potential right from the beginning,” said Board, who operated the site’s layout. “I’ve enjoyed being involved.”

Throughout the site’s creation—which involved students’ diagramming, coding and designing the page—members of the development team held transparency as an important feature of the Web site.

“We believe that transparency will allow people to get a more accurate view of the topics at hand,” Bock said. “It’ll allow people to generate a more interesting and productive discussion. With transparency, people are able to see exactly what others are thinking.”

To ensure that users engage that transparency in a productive manner, the site’s polls operate on an algorithm that measures the number of “boost” or “veto” votes to measure a poll’s popularity and the recentness of the votes made on it.

The algorithm then drives the most popular polls in both criteria to the top of the page, resulting in a changeover for the polls that Bock says takes about a day.

Polls recently at the top of the site have included “What do you think about McCain’s choice for VP?”, “What do you think of Johnny Depp as a potential for the Riddler in a Batman movie?” and “Do you ever speak in Internet memes in real life?”

Each of the polls offers a variety of possible answers, often includes a link to a site relevant to the poll, as well as a space for users to leave comment.

The polls are also categorized into sections such as “News,” “Politics,” “Entertainment,” and—just for fun—“Curiosity.”

The Web site’s community also monitors each of the polls with “flagged” polls appearing below a certain threshold—where they are inaccessible to any who might find them inappropriate—until they have been investigated by the site operators.

This aspect of the site touches on another key feature of Do-A-Poll: user feedback. Feedback, especially from Wash. U. and MIT students, will also affect the direction the site takes in the future.

Board says that the Web site could go in a number of directions.

“It could support a move toward social networking with more developed profiles and adding friends,” Board said. “Alternately, the polling could become more developed, with more refined categories and a more advanced comment system.”

Either way, the site’s creators say that the users will ultimately define the success of Do-A-Poll.

“Success would be for people to have a place to hang out to find out more about each others’ views and to generate an interesting discussion,” Bock said.

For more information, visit http://www.doapoll.com.

The commitment to this effort is significant: Student Union has established a $60,000 fund for students and student groups creating programs around the elections, the Gephardt Institute has launched a comprehensive voter registration drive and each of the campus political groups will be committing significant resources to campaign for their respective candidates and issues. It is noteworthy and commendable that these programs focus not on mechanically mobilizing students, but on instilling a commitment to citizenship and the electoral process that stresses an underlying understanding of the process and not just pulling a lever in the voting booth. Furthermore, the confluence of the vice presidential debate on our campus with the election means that students will be able to see the political process first hand as they prepare to participate in it.

Even as the debate and the election are central events in the programming calendar, however, they should not be the ultimate focus of these groups’ efforts. Although the debate is a unique opportunity for Washington University, campus will not be fundamentally altered the morning after the candidates leave. While this election will mark a significant turning point in recent American history, it will eventually fade from memory.

Instead, the current political atmosphere is ripe to begin a sustained change toward greater activism among America’s student population. This transformation will not occur through one debate or in the course of one election cycle; it will be a gradual change that sets in over the course of many months and years. The current burst of programming is a step toward solidifying that change, but it is not enough to make it set in. It is important that groups around campus continue to offer political programming with an eye towards building on and sustaining students’ current interest. Especially now, while political initiatives have considerable inertia, it is important that planning begins for future civic programming.

As important as pledging time and money to civics is during an election year, it is all the more meaningful during political off years. Students should not just want to be involved with the election cycle, they should want to interact with their government on the decisions that impact their day-to-day life. This means understanding and advocating issues on a national level, as well as taking part in and being aware of local politics. Local politics—city councils, school boards public forums and more—are equally important to the political process and to participating in American society.

Partisan speakers, issue education and political debate should be a fixture of a Washington University education, not a passing fad. The tenets of the Student Civic Initiative, laid out last year by a group of students concerned with fostering a sense of civic awareness within the University community, was a good start on this road, but those students must monitor to see that their roadmap is followed and must deal with both national and local issues. The University must create policies that are conducive to a future where political awareness and involvement is a normal part of college life. This does not mean compromising the non-partisan nature of an educational setting, simply ensuring that there are ample forums to express partisan ideas in a forum that nurtures education and allows ideas to be healthily challenged.

Above all else, the campus must not forget that the presidential election by itself does not represent the essence of democracy. We serve democracy only through an informed, active and committed electorate. That is the eventual goal of all current election programming, the motivation for continuing to devote resources to this cause and the ideal that we should keep in mind as we move beyond this year’s election.