This article is concerned with a much bigger problem which was touched on, not by the candidates, but by the teacher that asked the last question directed to Dole.

Her concern was that 63 percent of qualified voters do not vote. That means a majority does not determine our governing; a minority does and the reason seems to be beyond any politicians' or political analysts' grasp.

This writer has not registered to vote since Jimmy Carter ran for president. This writer can also tell you why which is more than any candidate or any politician in any office is likely to do, even if they do know. The answer is quite simple.

First, most people consider the government as THE GOVERNMENT, that it is not 'of the people', 'by the people', and 'for the people'.

As such, it is considered by many of us to be above and beyond our control. This feeling is indicated even on the city level by one of the earliest sayings the writer can recall hearing: "You can't fight city hall."

Second, who can one believe? Every politician says what he thinks people want to hear to get himself elected. Take the debate tonight. Dole talked about tax cuts but he did not bring up all the tax increases he pushed for in his 40 years as a politician.

He also brought up that the Clinton administration had had the largest tax hike. But, unless the media was wrong, unless other politicians were wrong or lying, that increase only affected people who earned $200,000 a year or more.

Guess who was affected. If you guessed the Doles and others like them, then you were right since they earn way above $200,000 a year. Funny how facts are misrepresented, isn't it? Or, is it?

Thus, many of us believe campaign promises and statements against opponents, regardless of the office, are just that - campaign promises and nothing more than statements born to the campaign, the game of politics in full swing.

How often promises have been broken in the past by politicians on all levels. Sad but true. And, the public allows it - then bitches.

Who knows if any statement made by a politician against another is the truth? We listen, and, who knows why, decide to believe one or the other. If we find out the politician lied or misled, we let it go. And, the public bitches.

Which brings us to the third reason, the reliance by so many politicians on negative ads that too often are not based on fact but, on complete fiction, incomplete information, or misleading information.

The ads point out the failing of the opponent. And, since the opponents are running negative ads against each of the others, then all must have failings. So, the voter is left with the 'lesser of the evils'. Why bother to vote?

In conjunction with reasons two and three is that 50 percent of the adult population cannot read. Thus, they rely on the spoken word for information. One politician says one thing which another refutes. The latter then says something which may or may not be factual. Then, enter the media analysts who may or may not analyze the situation accurately.

Where does that leave the illiterate person? No facts whatsoever. Why bother to vote? Besides, do people who did not get enough from our system to learn to read really care about who is in office on any level, not just the presidential level?

As far as the presidential election is concerned, does one vote make a difference? Do a million votes make a difference? Not as long as the Electoral College exists. Again, why bother to take the time to register and then to vote?

And, then, again, that pesky problem one hears come up again and again during any presidential election year. Neither one is any good so who do we have to vote for? Of course, this relates to all the above reasons.

The solution to removing voter apathy is actually quite simple. It is a three-part answer. First, prosecute any politician who lies about any issue, any bill, and when attempting to win votes or in the performance of their duties. That will go along ways towards establishing trust in elected officials.

Two, do away with the electoral college so that people know their vote counts in presidential elections.

Three, assure that the media presents facts and does not state any of their personal attitudes or analyses. Also, assure that both sides of any issue are factually represented and any degree of potential voter biasing is absolutely prohibited by communications' regulations.

The most offensive analysis this writer heard this evening was made by a woman named Lisa Myers, NBC correspondent who has traveled with Dole. She said that President Clinton was "half-evangelist, half talk-show host".

If this writer was the head of NBC, she would now be unemployed. Her personalized comment, in the vernacular, sucked. Media people should be required by law to keep all personal thoughts to themselves.

Now, for once, you have heard the problem, probable reasons that the problem exists, and a means of solving the problem.

It's up to you, Ladies and Gentlemen. If you want representation by the majority, get busy and do your part in changing the non-voting public's attitude of apathy.

The writer has changed his by getting angry at the political system's abuse by politicians and is now trying to do his part. If he can attempt great involvement, so can you and involvement doesn't necessarily require anger, although it is a tremendous motivator.

Concern for your own and following generations' future will work just as well.