So, it's 2008 and most of the people I know are already sick and tired of political mudslinging and wishy-washy, half-ass stances that the candidates for US President have taken. But the fun has only begun. You can expect 10 more months of the latest endorsements, newest poll numbers, pundits talking about viable candidates, bloggers' ranting on about last night's debate, and the millions of political ads that will descend upon us making you think you are trapped inside a Space Invaders game.

Here is what we already know about the candidates. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. John Edwards cares about working people. John McCain doesn't have enough campaign money. Hillary Clinton has a health care plan. Rudy Giuliani will protect us from terrorists. Obama has Oprah on his team. After months of campaigning this is what we know. Some of you might be saying that we know more than this about the candidates and you are probably right. What I am saying about the presidential race is, that up to this point what do we really know about where the candidates stand on issues? In conversations I have had with people about candidate platforms and positions there are always long pauses, since it seems that people don't have any serious understanding of what candidates stand for. It's my belief that this has a great deal to do with how the media reports on elections but it also has to do with how we have elevated the electoral process in this country to a sacred status. What follows are a few thoughts on how to be a more savvy consumer of news during an election cycle and some thoughts on the role and function of elections in a democracy.

Much of election coverage, particularly at the federal level will consist of what is called "horse-race" coverage. Horse-race coverage is when journalists do little more than tell us where candidates were, where they are going, who they spoke to, how they sounded, and where they are in the polls. Polling itself will drive a great deal of the news reporting on candidates, even though the methodology of the polling is rarely shared with the public, nor is there much information about how the questions were framed nor the demographics of those polled. Reporters will talk to Pollsters, people who work for a polling firm and have been given the status of "election expert" because they say they are. Quite often news agencies will pay polling companies to ask specific questions, which will give the news outlets information in order to create more stories about the candidates. Candidates, Political Action Committees (PACs), and political parties will even pay for polling services that will provide results that are specifically designed to give their candidate a "favorable edge" or make it look like they are "gaining ground." All of this is of course pure bullshit, since none of it is based on hard data and polls only use a sample of voters. Never believe polls, period!

The other type of reporting during an election cycle is the kind where during a speech or a candidate debate, reporters will provide a summary of what was said, but offer no follow up investigation or verification of the claims made by candidates. This is what some media researchers refer to as "news stenography." News stenography does just what a courtroom stenographer does, they write what was said, but do not question the comments made. In fact, courtroom stenographers are better than journalists, because at least they record everything that was said, whereas journalists only provide a summary of what candidates say. When candidates say "I care about children...they are the future of this country"...just what does that mean? It is a meaningless statement unless there is some evidence about what a candidate has already done or what they will do. If a candidate has held elected office or is currently holding elected office, which is the case of every candidate for President from both the Democratic and Republican parties, then reporters can easily verify claims made about how much candidates care about children. You could look at their voting record on policies like No Child Left Behind or funding for programs like Head Start. This kind of information can be found on websites like www.vote-smart.org, which provides voting records of all elected officials at the federal level. Reporters could also check the websites of the candidates themselves to see what plan or policies they advocate. The candidates may not adhere to such claims, but if reporters regularly state what the candidates' position is then it provides a better chance for public accountability after they are elected.

Let me share an example of what I mean based upon a story that ran in the Grand Rapids Press in early December. The Spanish language cable news station Univision held a candidate debate amongst the GOP contenders in Spanish. The article that appeared in the Press only cites 3 of the 6 candidates who participated and the only information on candidate positions that appeared in the was that the GOP candidates for President were "tough on immigration." Well, call me crazy, but I need a little more information than that. We did a posting of this story on the News Analysis section of the www.mediamouse.org site and provided a hyperlink to each of the GOP candidate positions on immigration. It took me about 15 minutes to find all of them and post them on the site, so why couldn't the reporter who did the AP story that appeared in the Press?

Another good online source for checking claims by candidates in news stories and political ads is www.factcheck.org. This site is dedicated to just verifying claims made by candidates at the federal level and is the best site for critiquing paid political ads. Media Mouse has also been running articles covering candidate's positions in recent months, such as a story on the Democratic candidates' stances on the war in Iraq, Rep. Ehlers environmental record, and what votes that Democratic candidates for president who are in the Congress have missed on purpose.

Another aspect of election coverage to address has to do with campaign financing. We all know that what drives elections in this country is money. Each Presidential cycle sets a new record for money raised and spent. In 2004, the Bush and Kerry race rose over a half a billion dollars and the 2008 election cycle is expected to surpass the $1 billion mark. There has been coverage about what candidates have raised to date and how much they have spent, but little attention has been paid to who is providing the money to candidates. A great resource to track the election money is www.opensecrets.org. This site is run by the Center for Responsive Politics and will give you information on the amounts candidates have raised, from which individuals and PACs, how much they are spending and where they are spending it. Another good source for similar information is www.whitehouseforsale.org.

Now that you might be better equipped to sift through all the crap during an election year let's talk a bit about the function of elections in the US. People have raised concerns in the past two presidential elections about voter fraud, both in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. There is much evidence to support claims of voter fraud, but it is important to point out that voter fraud is nothing new. First, let's remember that there are always certain sectors of society who have been excluded from the election process - women, slaves, immigrants, and more recently those convicted of crimes and particularly the poor. It has always been in the interest of those in power to try to marginalize people from participating in elections, particularly those who may not share the same views as those in power. The rich pay for those they want to formally run the country and then make sure that those who are disenfranchised are prevented from participating in the process. There is a great book that chronicles this history of electoral fraud entitled, Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections And The Rotten History Of Democracy In America by Andrew Gumbel.

Of course, there are lots of people who do not even bother to vote. In the US, roughly 50% of those who are eligible to vote do not. Maybe if we can just get more of those folks to participate we can make a difference in the next election? Maybe, but why do you think that many people don't even bother to vote? Are they just plain lazy or do many people just have a sense that it doesn't really make a difference? This is an important question that we all need to ask ourselves, because it might help us understand what role elections really play in our society. This is an ongoing debate in left and progressive circles and there are some who argue that it is a waste of time to participate in the process at all. But what if we approached the voting question first from the perspective of how to we work for a more just society. I think many people vote because they want to support policies and candidates that they think will best represent their point of view, which for most is how to make things better.

Now, if we believe that is the premise for why people vote then ask yourself, how have any fundamental changes come about in the history of this country? Think about how slavery was ended, how workers rights were won, child labor laws enacted, environmental regulations put in place, how civil rights were won, how women's rights were achieved, consumer rights defended, and civil liberties protected. Did any of these major changes in US society come about initially through elections? No, they all came about by social struggles and popular movements. So why in the world during an election cycle do we stop working on the issues that we are passionate about and just work on voting for a particular candidate? Do you really believe that any particular candidate will change direction of US foreign policy and represent the majority of those in this country to end the US occupation of Iraq? Do you really think that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards are really going to act in the interest of working people? Are any of them talking about fighting for a living wage for workers or challenging corporate CEO greed? Are any of the candidates really talking about an immigration policy that is based on justice and equity? Is the urgency of global warming and environmental devastation central to the platforms of any of the candidates running for president? If you cannot answer yes to any of these questions (I certainly can't), then why would you put so much energy into something that will not produce the results that you wish to see?