DIMINISHED DEMOCRACY: VOTER APATHY SEEMS ONLY TO BUILD

Political observers have always assumed, incorrectly for the most part, that John Q. Public has as great an interest in candidates and campaigns as they do. The qualifying statement for such a conclusion has generally been that the Great Sport of America, namely politics, was too important to be neglected, thus the public was automatically concerned about who is elected and whose campaign is bogging down for a variety of reasons.

At least some of these observers reluctantly began admitting that politics was not as all-consuming as previously believed when voter turnout figures began declining, sometimes to embarrassing lows. Only then were some in public life forced to admit that their enthusiasm was hardly shared by millions of other voters who could pretty well take or leave what they viewed as the duplicity, pettiness and sheer hypocrisy of the candidate selection system.

This public indifference to candidates, campaigns and public issues is obvious today in our own state, where every opinion poll we've seen in recent weeks indicates a large proportion of voters have yet to make up their minds in most of the statewide races now going on. Because of the scope and intrusiveness of this year's presidential campaign, most Missourians appear to have settled on their favorite candidate, although the undecided column still carries a fair share of the electorate expected on Nov. 3.

What has not been decided are the many statewide races featuring candidates who will fill important jobs in Jefferson City over the next four years. For several positions, the undecided vote is more than large enough to decide the winner in these races and it probably will. Indeed, there are so many races and so many issues to be decided next month, many observers are placing bets not on the best qualified candidates but those who are fortunate enough to have a name that sounds familiar, even when it isn't.

As just one example, take the race for secretary of state. Three candidates have been certified for this contest; a Republican, a Democrat and a Libertarian Party hopeful. The names, without their party designation, are Eric Harris, Judith Moriarty and John Hancock. If you have no indication whatsoever of the abilities of any of these three, which one would you pick as the winner? A good guess would be John Hancock, whose conspicuous signature on the Declaration of Independence and whose name identifies a large insurance company, makes him a household word. Many observers now believe Hancock, a Republican state representative from St. Louis County, will win his contest by virtue of the familiarity of his name.

There are other contests for statewide office that also hinge on public name recognition, which helps explain why for so many years in our state, anyone named Kennedy ran exceptionally well, even when they were ringers who had not one redeeming recommendation for public office save their surname.

This method of selecting campaign winners might be amusing were it not so dangerous to responsible government. If voters believe familiarity is the essence of careful selection of the candidates, it is likely to subscribe to the theory that nothing that occurs in Jefferson City has any significance in the lives of millions of citizens of this state. We all know this isn't true, but the lack of information on candidates and their abilities constitutes a serious threat to good government that deserves far more attention than it has received.

There will be 373 candidates for national and state office on next month's ballots, and in addition there will be 10 constitutional questions, not a few of which are somewhat complicated. It can be assumed, with considerable evidence in hand, that John Q. Public will know as little about the 10 issues as he possesses about the qualifications of the candidates he will select. What makes the constitutional amendment issue so troublesome is two-fold: the large number and the somewhat complex, if not complicated, questions being presented.

The issues are more complex than complicated, and one need not be a nuclear scientist to reach perfectly logical conclusions about them. They are complex because some of them require, at the very least, a complete reading before there is complete understanding. Those who believe even 10 percent of the voters will read the complete text of all constitutional issues before deciding on their merits and demerits please raise your hand. Congratulations, you have just joined the largest group of optimists in the state of Missouri.

This is not what the Founding Fathers intended for America. They envisioned a common discussion, a common agreement, a common understanding by those qualified to vote.

They envisioned something akin to the town meetings still held in portions of New England, where matters important to the community were discussed, debated and decided by all present. Our forefathers who went West employed this same system for a few years but abandoned it for a variety of geographical, political and economic reasons. The logic behind the town meetings is indisputable: they provide voters with the information they need to make intelligent decisions.

Given the size, makeup and indifference of today's population, such town meetings would no doubt prove to be unworkable, even if voters could be persuaded to attend them. In their place should come individual citizen initiative, interest and intelligence to make proper policy decisions. If you believe this will ever come about, you are probably certifiably cuckoo.