Well, it's (mostly) over, and it could have been worse. A lot of people claim to see little difference between Democrats and Republicans. In part that's because it's a popular thing to say, kind of like, "The best offense is a good defense." Some people actually believe it, however. They seem to fall into two camps: 1) people with strong ideological preferences, namely, conservatives, Libertarians, and socialists; and, 2) know-nothing Independents.

The former can be further divided. In one group are people who have an earnest interest in politics. In the other are people who truly see little difference between the parties, but who are interested in this observation less as a statement of truth than as an avenue to rant about their political beliefs. They are much like overeager Amway salesmen looking for any opportunity to remind you that multi-level marketing can help you make money and save money. That is perhaps a calumny against Amway members.

This leaves us with the second of the two groups I mentioned initially -- know-nothing Independents. I am increasingly convinced that this is a redundant term. I think in part this is my visceral reaction to news analyst worship of the Independent. In many news venues the Independent has been portrayed as thoughtful, above partisanship, capable of setting aside whim and short-term inclinations to support those policies best suited for advancing the public interest.

This is hogwash. Demographically speaking, if you want to see a typical Independent, find a former Ross Perot voter: white, middle-aged, male, above-average income, mad as hell and not quite sure what to do about it. He doesn't have a greater grasp on problems or solutions, just a sneaking suspicion that the latter don't lie in either of the two major parties. This is all fine and good; I suspect that hunch may be largely correct .

It is when he is interviewed that the myth of the knowledgeable Independent is exploded. Recall the last Presidential election, and those nauseating citizen focus groups inflicted on those of us with the courage to watch television in October. Or watch a C-SPAN broadcast during one of their call-in segments. Someone somewhere has gotten the bad idea that sticking microphones under noses is good for democracy. The results, however, make me wish we could raise the voting bar a bit, say past 99% of the population, for starters.

Unlike Independents, what Democrats and Republicans have to say tends to change with their parties' messages. Thus when Clinton was having trouble keeping track of what lie he had told about sex with whom, we could count on Democrats to say "that's his personal business," while Republicans insisted, "Presidents who lie under oath deserve to be fired." Now that Bush and the war on terrorism are exceedingly popular, the C-SPAN viewer can listen to Democrats remind us how important job growth is, while Republicans focus on stopping terrorists, and note that a critical strategy for doing so is a reduction of the capital gains tax.

Independents, on the other hand, always preface their comments with something like this: "There's too much bickering in Washington. I see no difference between the parties, so I vote for individuals I believe have the best answers to the nation's problems." Rain or shine, depression or war, the trusty Independent never strays off message. Never mind the fact that we need be most afraid when the politicians aren't bickering, or the reality that individual Congressman can only accomplish change in the context of the party system.

But the thoughtfulness of the Independent is only a veneer anyway, so these realities needn't intrude. Survey data reveals that the Independent is no more significantly educated on policy issues than is the average Democrat or Republican. He is slightly more willing to vote a split ticket, but not significantly so, thus belying the claim of choosing candidates based on individual merit. In fact, most Independents really aren't. Survey data shows that the bulk of people who call themselves Independent lean towards one of the two major parties, share the views of that party, and behave very much like members of that party. In short, most Independents are closet partisans who prefer the image of intelligence conferred by claiming Independent status, and are willing to sacrifice a voice in the primaries to obtain it. Hardly an act of sublime insight, don't you think?

Far worse than Independents, however, are the Undecideds, twits who claim not to have made up their minds a week -- sometimes even a day -- before an election. Interviewing Undecideds is a relatively recent phenomenon. You might recall they received considerable prominence in the days leading up to the last Presidential election. They were handled by journalists like exotic material, as if they somehow held the key to the future. Just once I would have liked to hear a journalist ask, "what kind of idiot are you, that you still can't decide between Bush and Gore? What new information do you expect to surface in the next 48 hours?"

Undecideds, like Independents, have received prominence as a result of journalists thinking they know something about voting and elections. For the most part, they don't. Even the sagest of Sunday morning talk show pundits can be counted on regularly to dispense idiocy. For example, notice how often an Eleanor Clift or Sam Donaldson will make an observation like the following: "The President is really positioning himself precariously here, supporting a revision of key amendments to the Farm Appropriations Bill, yet also advancing through back channels a handful of trade arrangements which many analysts project will ultimately depress the price of soybeans. I think midwestern voters are going to see through this kind of thing, and punish him in the midterm elections."

The reality, of course, is that most midwestern voters, like the rest of us, have no clue when there is a farm bill in play, and know nothing about its relationship to free trade. Survey evidence is clear that the vast majority of voters have only the fuzziest sense of what the candidates stand for, and virtually no knowledge of what they have done. They vote on the basis of party identification, and how they think the economy is doing, and charisma, and symbolism. The pundits need to appear insightful, however, so they carry on discussions of strategic machinations that rarely have any bearing on the realities of voting and elections.

While pundits talk as if an aware citizenry is punishing politicians who perform badly, it is more likely the case (and there is solid evidence to support this) that politicians punish one another, in the following way: perceived missteps by elected officials increase the odds that strong challengers (those with money, connections, charisma, name reputation, etc.) will emerge in the next election. Why? Because they believe voters are paying attention to the missteps. In short, it may be the case that democracy works indirectly, as a result of the political classes believing that voters are paying attention.

So perhaps I shouldn't dispel the myth. Back to the matter at hand, which is yesterday's elections. As I was saying, it's popular to assert that there is no difference between the parties. Few people really believe that, mind you, but they like to say it. But some believe it, and I suspect in the grand scheme of things they are right. That doesn't mean we can't personalize things, and find joy, for example, in the fact that a Kennedy lost yesterday. This is almost always a good thing. Or, we could take the lesser -of-two-evils view, and give thanks that as we are shaken down for the next two years by our national government, at least they are more likely to pull a punch or two in the various back alleys down which they drag us to extract liberty and rent.

But I'm feeling optimistic today, and hoping that this time, the party of Lincoln will have the fortitude to make good on some part of their endless pontificating about the need for reform of education, Social Security, health care, the military, the tax code, and the legal system. I hope they'll move beyond this novel co-governance model to which the Democrats believe they are entitled post-2000. Most of all, I hope Jim Jeffords (I, Hubris) gets relegated to the sub-sub-committee on toilet bowl regulation, watches the insanely unjust milk pricing scheme disappear, and is regularly wedgied in the Senate bathroom. I know we're all supposed to oppose partisanship, but you have to admit that brings a smile to your face, doesn't it?