Every two years, it’s the same story: Americans overlook the primaries and caucuses, out of laziness or disinterest, or simply because they have no idea what’s going on. The bad candidates slip through the cracks (re-electing Blago after controversy had already sprung loose, for instance) and end up on the ballot come Election Day. Less-than-ideal candidates get elected, and no one is happy.

It’s a bad cycle. But can it be broken? Political theorist William Galston asked an “interesting question”:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinion/sunday/telling-americans-to-vote-or-else.html?pagewanted=all in the New York Times a few weeks ago: “Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting?”

The article elicited a “strong response”:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html from readers. One respondent, Eric Rosenbloom, said our “winner-take-all,” parliament-less system renders most individual votes meaningless — “for most people, voting does not lead to a greater sense of participation in government, but rather reminds them — over and over — that their voices are not represented.”

Another, Nandini Pandya, said voters may have difficulty voting because they can’t take time off work or have a long commute to polling places.

In our state, at least, these aren’t viable excuses; ballots are available for absentees, students and hospitalized voters. In Champaign County, early voting is offered for multiple-week periods on weekdays and weekends.

What it really comes down to, I decided, was whether mandatory voting would actually derive universally thoughtful votes. Mark Weiner, Rutgers-Newark School of Law professor, gently reminded in his letter to the editor that “a direct mandate to vote lies beyond the enumerated powers of Congress” and might violate state autonomy and free speech values, “as nonparticipation is a valid mode of political dissent.” Paul Quintavalla agreed in his letter, saying, “All votes are opinions, and not casting one expresses an opinion of the individual.”

In recent years on election days, Business Insider has posted an article by John Carney called, “It’s Okay That You’re Not Voting Today.” The piece belittles the voting process, saying that the odds of influencing an election outcome are “vanishingly small,” that the heuristics people use to vote are easily exploited by political groups, that a candidate’s campaign promises rarely translate to reality, and that, all in all, “We’re probably all better off if we leave the voting to the informed and committed.”

In my two terms as a registered voter, I’ve eagerly — obsessively, even — participated in this biennial act of civic duty. Not because I naively believe my vote will change an election, but because I know that my vote is a physical representation of a willfulness to try to understand the world around me. If everyone did the same, I honestly don’t think our political system would have the level of corruption and dishonesty that exists now — how could it? With only a small fraction of Americans routinely investigating the everyday actions of the elected and appointed, imagine how much more we would know if the interest and societal pressure existed in every citizen across the country.

So often, the citizens of America construe themselves as blind pawns in a ruthless political power game. As gerrymandered, public relations-fed little guys who know nothing about how government works (or simply can’t do anything about it). That’s just an easy way out. A thorough understanding of government programs, policy and foreign affairs serves as a safeguard against bad politicians. I’ve been astounded, time and time again, by how easy it is for candidates to spin something bogus into something that sounds great to people who don’t know any better (9-9-9 anyone?).

It’s sad, but yes, the cycle can be broken.

Maybe your one individual vote might not change the outcome of an election. But it’s not the absence of your one-in-130 million-or-so vote that is the problem. It’s the absence of your voice in a universal political, societal, cultural and social dialogue that shapes our country. Sure, I’m not paying property or income taxes, but I will be soon after graduation. I’m not gay, I don’t need to have an abortion and I’m not on Medicare or Medicaid, but all of those things matter in the world I live in, so I decide how I want to vote on those issues. And in some small way, how I feel about those issues influences others.

Would mandatory voting do us any good? I don’t think so. If there are two major problems in our current system — that voters don’t know enough to vote or choose not to vote as a political statement — neither are remedied by forcing a half-hearted, ill-researched vote. Better fundamental, nonpartisan political education starting in elementary schools that progresses into high school? Now we’re talking. Fostering an interest early on might result in a more politically mobilized America.

As Carney says, your vote might not swing an election. You can, however, influence others with “a bumper sticker, a chat with a neighbor or a bar-side argument over politics.” Find that thing you want to argue about. And just start fighting for it.

_Megan is a senior in Media._