NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN...

KENNETT, Mo. -- If memory serves, many of us were frightened by the prospect of a Doomsday machine starting at the beginning of this year, only to feel a sense of relief when airliners didn't come falling out of the sky and nuclear power plants didn't blow up as a result of outdated electronic engineering. It was one of those possible disasters that didn't occur, so most assumed we wouldn't face another situation as traumatic as electronic self-destruction, at least not for a year or so.

And, then, along came the primary campaigns, the party conventions and, at last, the opportunity we had all been waiting for: to shut down divisive partisan dialogue by going to the polls Nov. 7. By the time the election returns started coming in, some had done enough mental calculating to realize the Gore-Bush campaigns could go down to the last wire, and many silently prayed we would wake up the next morning to learn that one of two would have sufficient plurality to end, once and for all, one of the closest electoral contests in America's history.

Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to be, and we soon realized that instead of any end to fitful political dialogue, and far too many distortions, we were about to be subjected, ad nauseam, to the heat of partisan parochialism. The apocalypse that we had only dimly seen immediately after election day soon became a full-scale war centered on voting techniques and their alleged or real inadequacies. Citizens, bound and gagged, were drawn into what seemed interminable periods of aggression, angst and antipathy a variety of feelings that unfortunate numbers of us were capable of feeling at almost the same time.

Readers of this piece will be spared the logical and illogical arguments advanced by partisans who sincerely believe they had suddenly become the sole heirs and arbiters of constitutional wisdom and political insight. Most of us will agree we have had enough of this kind of dialogue to last a lifetime, or at least until it comes time to elect another president. Deliver us from the experts who supplied us with their answers by simply noting that their candidate possessed all qualities needed to follow our incumbent president while his opponent was a vicious, lying specimen capable of overthrowing the Republic within the next fortnight. I doubt if anyone changes his view of this strange denouement after reading numerous partisan diatribes that only sought to vindicate the author's prejudices.

Let's acknowledge that the brouhaha that has occurred over the past month is hardly beneficial to the nation and its citizens.Yet, having noted this, it seems wise to mention that this has not been the nation's first -- nor, unfortunately, will it be our last -- political civil war. The federal system which the Founding Fathers warmly embraced for its democratic principles also carries with it varying amounts of partisan conflict, with the unrealized goal being an ascension to the peak of public enlightenment and national solidarity.

No one believes we have safely reached this mountain-top destination, and a substantial number may actually believe we have slipped several degrees in the reverse direction. But even if we have, we have climbed high enough to view our problems and hopefully we will realize that certain remedies are needed if rectifying solutions are to be realized. The first solution offered immediately after the election is that America needs to end its present electoral system and its admitted faults in search of a possible alternate: popular voting. Even this seemingly simple idea provides a variety of problems, not the least being the insignificance it inflicts on smaller population centers that are otherwise entitled to the same consideration as larger regions. A slight alteration in how votes are counted would correct this disadvantage, although it is not certain either political party will agree to such modification.

An even more important issue deserving careful thought is one that would standardize election balloting, replacing a weird assortment of various methodologies that were often chosen for the economy they provided rather than the efficiency that is much more desirable. There are acceptable alternatives that would guarantee the intent of the voter, a much desired quality obviously missing in hundreds of jurisdictions around the country. Fail-safe electronic systems that protect both the intent and the privacy of the voter are available, and the adoption of any of these systems would not only improve the electoral process in the future but would serve as a real deterrent to future voting disasters. If we're going to spend the rest of our lives in the electronic age, then let's make certain that we enjoy its benefits on the most important day in the life of our constitutional democracy.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of national elections is that, depending on the principals, they can become divisive features that destroy rather than build our country. No one can really believe that the election we have just endured will enhance the unanimity of the United States. The candidates have spent months -- and billions of dollars -- in their efforts to achieve the presidency and a plurality in the federal legislature. The result came to a climax on November 7, but its principal components were visible long before the parties convened to select their candidates. Campaigns must be seen not as anything-goes popularity contests but as reasonably timed periods in which partisan differences can be discussed, debated and advanced as desirable, needed policy revisions.

We have a long way to go before we reach this logical point in our nation's history, but we have generated much too much distrust, anger and hatred under the system we have too long ignored because we believed it served our national interest. The past month has clearly demonstrated the present system, far from meeting our needs, detracts from our great democracy and, if continued, will ultimately weaken, even destroy it.

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