Voting isn’t an exact science. Political junkies and academics aside, few spend much time, if any, making a study of what or who they’re to vote on or for. Far, far, far too many don’t vote at all. Not just this or that election, but never. Nothing in their immediately perceived world will significantly change as a result, so what’s the point? They have no special interest to advocate and have no interest in what influential “special interests” are reportedly interested. Politics isn’t their concern. They’re outsiders to a distant dominant two-party system failing to convince them that it will ever improve.

At the other end of the spectrum, I imagine a significant number of other non-voters are simply materially beyond the fray of political concerns. Either party is fine as long as the operative economic underpinnings remain the same. God bless the privileged child that’s got his own. No need to change nothing.

I myself keep voting and hoping for a reborn societal adoption of full-blown democracy. A rebirth of broad political participation here, there and everywhere that will step up to the plate and swing for an egalitarian home run that even the opposing team will cheer.

“It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” We all once learned that basic instructive truth, or at least understood the concept. Are those words even still part of our political lexicon?

Partisanship’s now so pronounced, so overarching, that attempting any dialogue has become politically incorrect to both sides. Whatever’s proposed by the opposition is automatically resisted. Winning’s all Us vs. Them, achieved by whatever means possible.

Tribal loyalty, by itself, isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as that allegiance isn’t so blind as to not even know whom actually comprises the team roster. I’ve always thought it would be a telling exercise to remove all stated party affiliations from the ballot, leaving only candidate names as guidance towards a yea or nay. That might prove an interesting challenge to those voting strictly along party lines. The more I think about it the more I like the notion that one would then at least have to somewhat know a candidate beforehand or risk mistakenly voting for the ideological enemy. For down-ballot candidates it would likely be a whole new ballgame. Even with top-tier offices that might present far more of an unexpected outcome than one might imagine, far more so than provided thus far from RCV’s promised game changer upon the political process.

It could be called ICV, informedchoice voting. Voter participation might initially take another hit, but then who can say that it wouldn’t eventually encourage a more knowledgeable electorate familiar with a player’s stats beyond just their team uniform.

Politicians seem to be already embracing the concept. Party affiliation and candidacy used to be joined at the hip. Campaign signs played up party endorsement big time when blue still meant Blue, red meant Red. No confusion.

Now most roadside name recognition attempts are not only stripped of overt party reference but calculatingly appropriate the opposition’s traditional color code. Attack ads have become more and more personal while personal campaign ads are less and less willing to identify with their party origin. Candidates are labeled an inclusive-sounding “Our” so as not to immediately alienate any possible crossover interest.

Strategic voter suppression now runs neck and neck with get-out-the-vote efforts. My view from the cheap seats remains hard-pressed to foresee which will win out come November. The optimist in me hopes that expecting an overwhelming voter turnout isn’t just hoping against hope. I keep telling myself that now that Labor Day’s proclaimed that summer’s officially over the electorate will finally become more engaged.

Where political science ends and punditry begins remains open-ended. Meteorology’s official guesstimators have similar difficulties divining the future. Like any hoped-for predictor, polling’s only as good as its data gathering. Whether a forecasted blue wave will actually arrive and finally force a red tide to recede is anybody’s guess.

That said, Maine’s governor race is reportedly a two-party dead heat at last pulse-taking. Going forward from here to Election Day, most political races will likely generate more heat than light. Campaign overtures to voters will likely journey the low road rather than the high.

Can either side of our present two-party system really remedy all our socio-economic ills by standing steadfastly separate and unbending? How can the totality of our society ever really coexist if politics, left and right, refuses to champion our commonality over our differences?

The supposed ideal campaign strategy is to never be specific enough on anything that it might provide a reason for anyone, whether within the party base or the electorate at large, to vote with their feet. I seek a candidate that’s instead willing to reveal all their cards straight up rather than disingenuously hedging their bet.

It can never be overly stressed that democracy isn’t a spectator sport. All of us have, like it or not, acknowledged or not, major skin in the game.

“Batter up!”

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.