After Nov. 7, we will finally be free of all the insufferable election season rhetoric. We will be granted a two-year reprieve until the ridiculous political vaudeville begins anew — the bitter partisanship, the unreflective banter, the hyperbole — it will surely return with a vengeance. At this point, we have had more than our fill of manipulative ads and spiteful language. Still, as the campaigners on both sides are so eager to remind us, we must fulfill our civic duty and vote. After all, we are told those who do not vote forfeit their right to complain.

Strangely, for all the urgency and import that the parties attach to these elections, they present us with such terribly uninspiring candidates. For months, the parties whip up a dramatic frenzy around emotional issues. Is it not a bit absurd, then, that they expect us to fulfill our duty by voting for one of two pedestrian candidates whose "ideas" consist of gentler, more politically-correct versions of attack-ad rhetoric?

We are encouraged and expected to vote in all of the major issues on Tuesday's ballot — decisions on Wisconsin's governor, attorney general and state Legislature, not to mention two important referendums. In many of these races, there are worthwhile candidates who will probably serve Wisconsin well enough. Yet, in some of the most important competitions, one must wonder: At what point does it become legitimate to vote for a third party candidate or to abstain from that particular race altogether?

As stigmatized as this type of voting is, it nevertheless represents a legitimate mode of expression at the polls. Regardless of what the hacks on both sides say, there is nothing wrong with declaring, "neither of these candidates reflect my views, and both of them represent what I hate about Wisconsin politics."

A vote for someone other than Jim Doyle or Mark Green is not a forfeiture of one's right to complain; rather, it can be a statement in favor of politics that embrace compromise, free thought and concern for the common good. Granted, the state's "balance of power" is at stake, as the Wisconsin State Journal observed on Sunday, and as the other campus newspaper noted last Thursday. Even so, should the "urgency" of these elections preclude us from voicing our true opinions?

Moderate and independent citizens should not be condemned to swallow bitter pills every election cycle. More and more voters are fed up with all the tiresome acrimony, revolting scandals and frustration of recent state and national politics. They should not shy away from expressing this at the polls, in the form of alternative candidates or abstention.

It is also worth remembering that voting only constitutes one mode of democratic expression. Even if one does not vote in a particular race, he or she may still call, e-mail or write to an official. One may still find a voice by sending letters to the editor to newspapers. For that matter, even posting anonymous message board comments or taking to the streets in protest are ways to engage society, albeit crude ones.

By all means, we should turn out to vote on Tuesday. But if a particular race presents us with two unsavory choices, as the gubernatorial one does, then we should feel perfectly comfortable expressing this, not just in our minds, but on our ballots.

Frank Hennick ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in History and International Studies.