Contrary to the best efforts of their tenacious spinmeisters to paint them as flawless candidates, both Bush and Kerry, like all men, are flawed. It’s simply not intellectually honest to defend everything either of them does at the expense and denouncement of the other. There are aspects fit for debate in both of their platforms, and it is up to each individual voter to decide which one of these candidates actually most closely represents what he or she perceives to be in the best interests of our nation.

It can be argued that George W. Bush, though very clear and resolute about his plans, sometimes sticks to principle to a fault, is destructively impulsive, and is often unwilling to cooperate with other countries in various global issues. It can also be argued that John Kerry lives and dies by polls, often places popularity—both domestically and abroad—above principle, deflects questions about his senate voting record, and repeatedly fails to actually outline his plans for anything.

But people love these candidates. And they hate these candidates. And they love and hate the people that love and hate these candidates. And neither extreme is particularly healthy for our country.

As we collectively get more apathetic, vicious and partisan, we lose something: respect for each other. These days, differences in belief are taken as personal attacks, and we fixate on winning the argument instead of winning the war. Not the one in Iraq, but a bigger war against a world where many people—including many in our own country—actively hate us. It will be an ongoing thing. And something that needs to be dealt with.

A debate about abortion is irrelevant if the coffee shop where you’re having the debate explodes. A battle over the Ten Commandments being posted in a courtroom will be rendered moot if somebody bombs the courthouse. Attempts to legalize marijuana, abolish the death penalty, provide prescription drugs for seniors and nationalize healthcare become less important if our national security is compromised again. Before we can resolve any and all of the volatile issues that divide our country, we must first make sure we still have a country. And it’s up to each and every voter to decide who’ll do the best job of protecting this country, for that is the most important issue in this year’s election.

So what can you do? Well, you can do your best and hope Bush or Kerry is the right guy. You can vote for Ralph Nader or Michael Badnarik. (Some would argue, though, that these would be throwaway votes, as neither candidate has a chance of winning. But if more people vote for outsiders in each election, we may eventually have more than two realistic choices.) You can also refuse to vote, but with other nations—most recently Afghanistan—literally fighting for their right to vote, the least you could do is show up at the polls and vote for SOMEBODY.

I don’t believe in certain pundits’ claims that so-called “uninformed” voters should stay home on Election Day. There is no test to enter the voting booth, and candidates take liberties with the truth all the time. Sometimes I even wonder if the “uninformed” voter can’t actually see things clearer than the so-called “informed” voter. I mean, what does “informed” even mean, anyway? Does it mean the voter really knows what’s going on, or does it mean that they’re best able to spout back their (or your) favorite candidate’s talking points?

I’m not going to tell you who to vote for. Maybe the third debate will help you decide. Let’s certainly hope it does. Regardless of who you choose, I’ll respect you for showing up.