ell, the elections are over, and the nation has let its decisions be heard. Let me offer a most sincere wish to everyone reading this article that you were one of the fortunate candidates who won in November. It is my true belief that anyone with the intelligence and taste to be reading this right now is certainly most capable and eminently qualified to hold office.
   Year after year, it never ceases to amaze me that, despite the overwhelming logic of Jeffersonian principles, so many people desperately seek to elect officials who oppose them. There’s no shortage of examples of wasteful government spending, yet somehow no shortage either of candidates who pitch themselves as Santa Claus. The candidate who vows to bring the bacon home to his district is a hero.
   So what gives? Of course, much of campaigning these days takes place on television (and it’s fun to blame television) Though, truly, the reliance on TV advertising is so out of hand that any candidate who doesn’t advertise on television has no hope of being perceived as legitimate. Grassroots politicians are frustrated to learn that the hard work put in traveling and shaking hands is worthless — unless constituents can see them on television. It’s remarkable to think that a candidate glimpsed on television is more real to a constituent than one he might actually have touched.
   A little time flipping through the television dials puts the problem in its proper focus. Ever notice that the biggest advertisers on late night television are selling fitness equipment and psychic hotlines? The Federal Government, incidentally, recently won a $500 million dollar settlement from the Psychic Friends Network, because, as it turns out, they weren’t hiring real psychics. Several state suits are pending, but in the State of Florida, a “vow of clairvoyance” must now be taken before anyone can work as a telephone psychic — essentially a psychic license…Not that psychics, if they exist, need jobs. I imagine that those gifted with the ability to see into the future are already fabulously wealthy from their stock picks, football bets, and lotto winnings.
   It’s acceptable to me that there will always be a few suckers that cannot see the hoax inherent in a psychic who needs to punch a clock; but in a free country, everybody has the right to seek counseling from any source they choose. There may even be something psychologically therapeutic in spending a half hour on the phone with someone who will assure you that health, love, and prosperity are all right around the corner. In fact, it’s difficult not to envy people who can be so easily convinced. But I digress…or do I?
   What troubles me is that these same people are standing right in front of me on Election Day. Say what you want about campaign finance reform; I liked the fact that I could help someone get elected with all the money that I didn’t blow on 1900 calls.
   Fitness ads are another grim indicator of how the public processes advertising. Here we are shown beautiful people on various fitness devices. Naturally they are A) already thin, B) smiling, and C) conspicuously free of perspiration. Also they seem to be having more fun than a toddler at a theme park ? and all the while getting that essential full body workout, three times a week, in less than twenty minutes a day.
   Of course, the simple truth about weight loss is that you have to eat less food than you need; and the truth about fitness is that you have to exercise. Exercise is hard work, and in the country we live in, it’s very hard to starve yourself. (Supersized value meals make it possible to overeat for less than five dollars a day.) No magic, outside of drug abuse, will allow you to loose weight without hunger, or exercise without effort.
   Similarly, there is no way for government to reduce taxes and deficits while increasing spending. But a society that is told it can lose weight without effort or hunger doesn’t believe that. The person who buys a $19.95 abdominal exerciser off of late night television is unlikely to support a candidate that refuses to make impossible campaign promises.
   As you might guess, I’m a proponent of stupid people staying home on Election Day. To that end, perhaps we should purposely make ballots more confusing. For instance:
   Candidate A and Candidate B are heading towards Washington on separate trains traveling at 60 MPH. Candidate A is 45 miles out of town, and Candidate B is 24 miles out of town. It is now Noon. Please select from the following times when your preferred candidate for US Senate is expected to arrive in Washington…assume neither candidate is traveling on Amtrak.
   And when the civil rights attorneys simmer down, I’ve got another idea for removing the ignorant from the ranks of voters: We simply offer worthless junk in exchange for a person’s right to vote. I realize it’s illegal to trade merchandise for votes, but I don’t think there are any restrictions on ballots from elections already held. We could promise the merchandise before the election, and require an unused absentee ballot to redeem the prize after Election Day. No problem. As always, offer void where prohibited.
   Some suggestions for trinkets that these targeted voters might value more than their votes are (in no particular order): An internet IPO share, Lotto tickets, The Abdominizer, a vegetarian burrito, Beanie Babies (limited edition Apathy Bear), Girls Gone Wild video, a five dollar cup of coffee, anything with NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon’s name on it, ditto for WWF, goldfilled chains, or an Academy Award. All these things, save the Academy Award, could be purchased in bulk for a pittance. Corporations could be set up to acquire the merchandise, and to pitch the offer via direct mail and infomercials. With campaign finance reform now the law of the land, this would be a great opportunity for big donors to do their civic duty unrestricted.
   I recently learned that Election Day was set in November to ensure that our farmers’ crops had been harvested and that they would, therefore, be free to travel to a polling place. And historically we vote on Tuesdays to allow enough travel time between church on Sunday and the voting deadline. Imagine that! Our founders expected that participants in the democratic process would commit to days of travel in order to cast a ballot. Today’s voters are total marshmallows by comparison. Ballots in cities like Chicago are printed in multiple languages, and back in 2000 the country had a collective conniption because the “butterfly” ballots were “too confusing”.
   It might be fun to get in touch with our roots by setting up polling locations that require extensive travel. How about holding elections in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? I suspect that ANWR holds such a fuzzy place in our hearts only because very few of us have ever been there. I would bet that if a few college environmentalists were forced to spend a couple days in a dark, bitterly cold, frozen wasteland they would want to drill it, just out of spite. (They’d probably want to put up a McDonald’s too).
   Not that most environmentalists will ever make the trip in their lifetimes, but that won’t stop them from dictating what’s to be done with the land. I disdain this practice of using the tyranny of the lower 48 against the actual residents of the region.
   Many environmentalists point to the Native Gwich’in People, whose sacred affiliation with the caribou might be disrupted by oil exploration. What most critics ignore, is the fact that there are actually two indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic “Wilderness.” The other residents, the Inupiat, are rarely mentioned. On the surface both Nations are very similar, each group numbering around 7000, they are descendants of the first people to cross over the Bering Straight. Both groups heat and light their homes with electricity, and use snowmobiles and rifles to hunt. (One never hears about whether the lives of the sacred caribou are disrupted by the trauma of being chased down with snowmobiles).
   Despite their similarities, these groups differ vastly in their opinions on oil drilling. The Gwich’in have aligned themselves with environmental lobbies, asking Congress to keep the region undeveloped, while the Inupiat are petitioning for the right to drill their land. The reason for the disparity is simple economics: Gwich’in Indians live outside of the coastal plain where the drilling would occur, 6 out of 7 actually live in Canada, and they would see none of the mineral royalties that would be paid to the Inupiat. Hence Robert Redford, (who appeared unconcerned about whether the lifestyles of Utah Natives were being disrupted by the introduction of a Hollywood Film Festival), ignores the Inipuit in his open letters to Congress.
   By holding a plebiscite among all US residents on whether to explore ANWR, and holding it within the region, we could ensure that only those personally affected, or inordinately concerned, could voice their opinions. There’s also the possibility that organized Greenpeace sponsored voters could get stranded, and be forced to abandon their vegetarian preferences to survive. (Hey, dare to dream!)
   Certainly these are only a few of the possible ideas that could be implemented to ensure that the current trend we just witnessed — of reasonable voices taking and holding office — is not just temporary. Happy New Year to you all, I’m looking forward to watching the upcoming legislative sessions.