MISSOURI WATCH: ELECTIONS: WHAT ARE THEY GOOD FOR?

Taxpayers shell out millions and millions of dollars for federal and state elections, yet after the winners and losers are determined, few of us pay any attention to what the results mean and what they might tell us about the conduct of public policy in the future. The public's response to its inattention to details is usually: what difference does it make?

The difference, dear reader, is that like virtually everything else in public life, election totals reflect a mood of the electorate that can only be determined once every two or four years. The totals compiled by all of the candidates reflect, to a large degree, whether the electorate is happy, lukewarm or dissatisfied with wannabe public officials. Voting is the only way anyone can really tell what voters are feeling and what they might feel in the future.

Here are some conclusions which might reasonably be drawn from the November 5 elections, and while they are not infallible, they do have the benefit of some statistical purity that pre-election polls and political predictions always lack.

No. 1: Voters more often than not choose those candidates who have the largest campaign treasuries. To put this more crassly, money talks when a candidate walks. Since much of America's marketing system is based on this premise, as witness the popularity of highly advertised aspirin as compared to low-budget efforts to sell the very same product, one can reasonably assume that Madison Avenue has as much influence over politics as it does over what kinds of bottles we stuff into our medicine chests.

No. 2: State candidates are often more popular than their counterparts at the federal level. For example, Gov. Mel Carnahan received nearly 200,000 more votes than fellow Democrat Bill Clinton. This conclusion is drawn from innumerable examples, not the least being that Carnahan has no history of fooling around, never smoked pot and holds down an easier job that escapes the close scrutiny given national political figures.

No. 3: Third party candidates tend to disappear from public favor after their first attempt. Four years ago Ross Perot got more than one-half million Missouri votes for president; this year he received less than half that. Even if a candidate such as Perot can attract true-believers, there is a hidden desire on the part of many of us to cast our ballot for someone who at least appears to have a shot at being elected. The electorate isn't keen on tenured lost causes.

No. 4: Even though their offices are in Washington, congressional offices are viewed more as state jobs than federal ones. It's not easy to connect the candidate who lives a few miles up the road to the issues in Congress, and voters tend to attach a local label to the folks who are anxious to have a try at big-time politics. This is a plus, since federal programs touch the lives of families who live down the road.

No. 5: Winning candidates usually exaggerate the importance of their vote with respect to future actions. Voters tend to select their favorites on the basis of what has occurred in the past, and despite the most sincere campaign promises, the electorate tends to view these as political hyperbole, without much basis for accuracy. Expecting a candidate to act in the future as he has in the past is like expecting your mother-in- law to be as friendly in July as she is at Christmas.

No. 6: Voters need better information about important state issues that should be approved/rejected by referendum. The rejection of Constitutional Amendment No. 7 is a perfect example. Designed to establish a "rainy day" fund to avoid fiscal panic in the event of a downturn in state revenue, the creation of such a fund is simply good, sound, responsible government. Apparently some voters believed it involved a tax hike, when in reality it called for prudent budgeting. Officials were too involved in other races to note constituent ambivalence.

No. 7: Elections have evolved as society has become more complex and remedies more elusive. The state's elections a half century ago were simple, as witness the Truman-Stark primary back in 1940 when the 6,000-vote winner bought the St. Louis southside machine wards on three separate occasions and the loser bought them only twice. Truman went on to become president and Stark went back home to Pike County.

Elections: what are they good for? They remain the only connection we voters have to the men and women who exercise great influence, power and control over our everyday lives.

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