Given that corruption abounds, whether in the form of bizarre tickle fests, the seamy side of pork or the slick use of a former president doing the dirty work of a current president, how do voters determine where to place their mark?

 For some, it is all in the face. In 2007, researchers at Princeton University found that "Most people judge a political candidate's competency within seconds of seeing their face." Participants were shown photos of candidates, if they recognized one, it was discarded. They rated the photos based on competency. Participants chose 72.4 percent of the winners in the 2006 Senate races and 68.6 percent of the gubernatorial winners.

 This raises a question: If voters in the 2008 election had not seen Barack Obama's or John McCain's face, who would have won based on qualifications? What a pure process it would be if voter's choices were founded on a candidate's experience and stances on the issues rather than age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, familiarity or the ever-evolving coolness factor that brings out the youth vote.

 The two times I have been to the racetrack I looked those horses in the face, laid my bets and lost my money. Clearly, a pretty face does not necessarily guarantee a win, place or show, and yet many people choose style over substance when picking their candidate. Currently, not only have Americans lost their bet, now we're broke.

 There are voters who delve deeper than partisan media sources and incessant phone call recordings and get the facts upon which to build a more accurate portrait of a candidate. With four phone lines and a cell phone, I currently foam at the mouth every time one of them rings. I no longer say, "Hello." Instead I say, "Now what?" Since campaign promises are meaningless, this demographic digs deep, determines who to vote against and then votes for the candidate that will do the least damage.

 I recently read a woman's comment on a Facebook page. She was letting a candidate know that even though he was her first choice, she was going to vote for one of his peers whom she thought would have a better chance of winning in the general election. This lazy type of strategic voter chooses a candidate, not on qualifications, but on whether they can beat the other guy. They jump on the popularity bandwagon and thus manage to cancel out the principled votes of the informed. Some view this type of voting as rational, even savvy. I view it as disingenuous and instrumental in the decline of American leadership.

 If more Americans stayed true to their values and principles and voted for the best candidate instead of hedging their bets, the liberal trinity of Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Harry Reid might be a distant nightmare by now. The Cambridge Idioms Dictionary defines hedging bets as, "to try to avoid giving an opinion or choosing only one thing, so that whatever happens in the future you will not have problems or seem stupid." Immediately the oft-cited phrase, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" comes to mind, which I punctuate with a sarcastic "thanks for voting".

 As John Stuart Mill said in the 19th century: "The democratic premise rests on the presence of an educated citizenry. Ideas and policies can neither be examined nor tested in the marketplace in the absence of an informed and critical public."

 This election cycle voters from all parties have an opportunity to clean house and elect candidates that take the principles of democracy, with its inherent freedoms and responsibilities, to heart. But wait, there's more. As an added bonus, the newly elected come into office knowing that the silent majority is no longer silent and that they will be carefully scrutinized both fiscally and morally, not by a partisan media, but by the people they have sworn to serve.