MISSOURI WATCH: ELECTIONS ARE ONLY CHANCE CITIZENS GET

Campaigns and elections that occur in even numbered years when we're not choosing a president and a governor are called "off-year" because they signify events that rarely attract much public attention. This is one of those years.

But even in off-year elections, we select no fewer than 191 men and women who will help determine the future directions taken by governments in Jefferson City and Washington.

In Missouri, voters will elect one of two U.S. senators, a state auditor, all nine members of our state's delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, 17 (one half) of all state senators and all 163 state representatives.

Let's put this in another context: Missouri voters have an opportunity to elect a total of 214 state officials, and this year they will choose 89 percent of all of them.

That puts a somewhat different light on the presumed insignificance of off-year elections, doesn't it?

But there is nothing insignificant about choosing one of the state's two members of arguably the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Senate. Nor is there anything picayune about the one elected official who keeps track of how our tax money is spent and whether it is being directed to the purposes we, the voters, have approved.

And there is absolutely nothing piffling about electing 100 percent of the membership of one of the two legislative chambers in our state and 50 percent of the second body. We entrust these persons to enact our laws, allocate our tax funds and maintain vigilance over the conduct and operations of Missouri's largest workforce: the public employees of the state.

Since we have an incumbent senator and an opposing candidate for the office of U.S. senator, a great deal of the information voters will be fed during the next several months will involve the votes cast by the incumbent and the claims of superior enlightenment by the challenger. Little of this information is germane, despite the candidates' insistence that it is critical, because none will reflect how the candidate will perform in the years ahead. We are, after all, electing candidates to represent us in the future, not reminisce over events that have little relevance to the world we are currently living in.

A poll conducted by "Nation" magazine not long ago enforces the efficacy of how a candidate is perceived against the reality of the moment. The cross-section survey of 600 Americans found that 93 percent of them could identify Monica Lewinsky and 89 percent knew who Paula Jones was. On the other hand, only 13 percent knew that President Clinton signed the Republican-sponsored welfare reform bill and a huge majority contended he opposed the GOP-enacted telecommunications act.

The conclusion from these disturbing results is that voters are neither minimally informed about the official conduct of their elected officeholders nor particularly interested in learning details that have considerable bearing on how official actions can transform their daily lives. Furthermore, we select officials based more on our personal conceptions of how they will perform than on information that is available to us.

In other words, don't mess with our prejudices.

From a current field of three obvious candidates for state auditor, voters will be asked to select one who can best direct one of the most important offices in Jefferson City. In recent years we have generally selected a certified public accountant for state auditor, adding a degree of professionalism that may not be as important as some many assume. The auditor dotes not perform audits but can help interpret them, while serving as the CEO of an essential department of government.

Because one of a new element has been state auditor also be a "performance audit," on audit figures, of carrying out its duties?

The principal problem is not in whether a CPA is also qualified to determine how well the Department of Mental Health, for example, is meeting its responsibilities to untreated patients but whether voters understand what a performance assessment really entails and whether more than a handful will the three is not a certified accountant, introduced in this contest: should the permitted to undertake something called which refers to an interpretation, based how well a particular department is ever take the trouble to learn exactly what is involved.

One thing we can be sure of: the candidates will use whatever arguments they believe will most appeal to voters and remain silent on points that reinforce the opposing views.

One of the more politically positive points about seeking a seat in the General Assembly, with 180 out of 197 to be filled in this year's election, is that candidates can select from hundreds of issues that, in varying degree, touch the lives of some of the 3,500,000 men, women and children who live in the state. Unfortunately, there is no rule requiring candidates to discuss, say, 100 of the 500 most critical issues in Jefferson City. Candidates pick and choose as they wish, and you can bet the farm that they will only pick and choose the ones they believe will win them the most votes.

Nothing is more amusing than watching a candidate squirm when asked how he or she will vote on an issue that is both controversial and which is plainly contrary to a majority view, if one indeed exists. Candidates tell voters they want to discuss the issues, but they are careful never to speak to those which may prove detrimental to their political health.

Most of us, broadly speaking, want our governments to be a positive force in our lives, yet we have a hunch we're suckers if we trust those who want to run them. The secret is in knowing enough to dispel our doubts and hunches and exercise the kind of knowledge and judgment the founding fathers envisioned we would and should possess.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.