An editorial in this week's newspaper lamented the lack of a better informed electorate.

The editor began the article by explaining how the Sheriff, a well liked man, after having begun his candidacy for a second term abruptly quit the race, despite "having the money and the support of enough voters to win."

He then went on to tell how he had just returned from a series of think tank meetings in Washington, D.C., and that a common theme throughout the meetings was how difficult it is to get "the best " leadership for the country whether from the right, left, or the center. He explained that these bright people were balking at running for public office because the electorate insisted upon knowing an official's private business as well as his public business.

Can this really be true? Is it really not the business of voters to be interested in the kind of people they elect to office?

And then the author had the gall to say "the refusal of the electorate to properly inform itself of the issues was the biggest culprit in this failure of the democratic system, and that we get what we usually pay for or vote for."

He continued by denying the media had anything to do with the situation, as it merely reports the news, and besides, he said the people are more interested in "Entertainment talk shows that deal more with rantings and ratings than with rational and reasoned thought processes."

Imagine, it's the fault of the voters they get only opportunists and thieves in government, simply because they trust the people they send to represent them in state and federal legislatures, when they should really inform themselves to better understand the current issues and bills. But, why? As long as political representatives are not required to listen to—or accept—advice from their constituents, why should voters bother to study the issues? If they did—if every citizen did become more knowledgeable about politics, and did study current issues and bills—would they need representatives to conduct the political business of the republic? They could do it themselves!

If true, however, isn't it possible the apathy of the voters toward the political issues of the day stems from their deliberate exclusion for more than 200 years from participation in decision-making by the Constitution of the United States? Couldn't this long tradition of exclusion from public affairs explain the citizens' notorious apathy for politics? Heck, if citizens can't expect their representatives or senators to consider their advice on how to vote issues, why should he, or she, try to understand bills on issues, which normally are deliberately written in obfuscating legal language!

But, if citizens are expected to take the time to bone up on current issues and bills, why do they need "representatives" to vote for them? The basic element lacking in the life of an ordinary American citizen is knowledge of "political" issues, whether local, regional, or national. Should this be required, every citizen could—and should—-cast his, or her, own vote. Once a society has evolved this far, it possesses a Direct Democracy.

How nice that would be!