Last week’s election and the entire year’s campaign cycle absorbed people’s interest people across the nation.

A tidal wave of posts took over social media outlets. Voters and non-voters alike took to message boards, walls and Twitter feeds to air their unfiltered opinions.

Some veered into disrespectful, uncivil speech.

While freedom of speech is a vital part of our society, it is not reason to fill news feeds with hate and disrespect.

Whether it was Democrats gloating about their victory or Republicans angrily lamenting their loss, the divisive statements were unbecoming.

Ironically, these polarizing, intense rants failed to recognize a basic democratic ideal—the uniting of diverse viewpoints.

By creating a dichotomy between “a good side” and “a bad side,” people discount the possibility of compromise.

They refuse to understand another person’s perspective.

Setting up this false binary means people are overlooking the full range of opinions.

These enraged posts underscore a larger issue—uncivil discourse.

Many Facebook status updates and tweets came across as demeaning.

Instead of promoting ideas, it dampens the political ideation process and discourages all parties.

We rarely see this type maliciousness play out in real life, but in cyberspace, it’s an all-out fight.

Behind the protection and distance of a screen, people can easily make a sweeping insult about a person’s beliefs.

This destroys any chance for someone to feel welcomed into  political discussion.

Hearing these divisive arguments coming from fellow students was especially disheartening.

Just follow the old adage: Think before you speak.

This way, students will represent their school well.

And, more importantly, they will represent themselves and their ideologies better.

Of course people should express their opinions. But they should do so in a decent manner.

Otherwise, the true goal of social media—to connect people from disparate backgrounds— will never be achieved.

When sophomore Nicole Lennon considered registering to vote in Marion County for the 2012 election, she was taken aback by Indiana state voter identification laws.

Lennon, who is from Michigan, does not possess the proper identification to vote in Indiana because she does not have an Indiana driver’s license or passport.

Indiana’s voting laws require a very specific form of identification to vote: an Indiana or federal government-issued form of ID with a photo and expiration date.

Essentially, a voter must have an Indiana driver’s license, state ID, military ID or passport to vote in Indiana.

Because of these requirements, Lennon decided not to vote at all in the upcoming election.

“It would have been too much of a hassle to get my vote in at home,” Lennon said. “I would have either had to absentee vote, go back home or purchase some kind of identification in Indiana.”

Beth White, Marion County clerk, said strict voter identification laws confuse and hinder many voters every year.

“It catches up a lot of people,” White said. “It may seem like everyone has a state ID, but the reality is that this is certainly not true.”

Some Indiana colleges have already begun taking new measures, including providing students with IDs that have expiration dates and would be suitable for voting.

Butler University IDs are not acceptable forms of identification because they are not state-issued and do not include an expiration date.

Out-of-state college students are not the only voters affected, White said.

Older people who no longer drive, people without birth certificates who, in turn, cannot obtain a state ID card, and people who have had their licenses taken away for various reasons are all affected by these strict rules.

“It’s really very frustrating to turn people away from the polls,” White said. “It restricts people’s options to vote and makes it truly impossible for some people to vote.”

Angie Nussmeyer, press secretary for Beth White and Marion County election administrator, said problems due resulting from strict ID laws can be frustrating for voters as well as staff and volunteers.

“Last Saturday, one woman showed us her Marion County sheriff department’s ID,” Nussmeyer said. “She couldn’t use it because it lacked an expiration date.”

White said an encounter earlier last week resulted in her having to turn away a Marion County resident at the polls.

Election board program coordinator Patrick Becker works directly with poll workers that check information and identification of voters in Marion County.

“While there are laws that allow people to vote by mail, they don’t apply to everyone,” Becker said. “There’s just a lack of education on the ID law itself typically until you are affected by them and turned away at the polls. It’s definitely a hindrance to voters.”

Larry Kelley, an Indianapolis resident who voted early in Marion County, said he sees a definite issue with the voter ID laws.

“There are some people, like the elderly, who don’t drive,” Kelley said. “I think these laws are keeping some people from voting when, really, the government should be encouraging them to vote.”

White said she believes the laws are in place to prevent a non-existent problem of voter fraud in the state and are, at the same time, keeping people from voting.

“The idea is to prevent voter impersonation, but there has never been a single case of in-person document fraud in an election in the state of Indiana,” she said.

White said she sees the strictness of these laws as they affect young people as potentially harmful to future generations’ relationship with government and politics.

“Young people now may become disaffected with politics,” White said. “If these laws are discouraging people now, that feeling could very likely linger for years to come.”

Voter identification laws have taken a main stage in debates this year.

In a nation where voter participation is consistently very low, any restrictions on voting need to be examined carefully.

In 2006, Indiana made national news for enacting one of the first in a wave of voter identification laws.

The law requires potential voters to have a valid photo ID to cast a vote in any governmental election.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this law in 2008.

Critics argue that these laws indirectly target the elderly, young, poor and racial or ethnic minorities.

Even in states where photo identification is provided for free, one must have the proper documents to qualify.

These documents—like birth certificates and social security cards—cost around $25 in many states.

Rural voters may also have difficulty getting to offices that provide valid ID.

In other words, these laws can place strict restrictions on voting for those without valid state identification.

The problem affects a significant portion of the voting pool.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, 11 percent of the voting population does not have valid photo ID.

This includes anything from expired identification, to changing genders, to moving, depending on the law and the enforcement involved from state to state.

The solution is not to just simply allow any person who wants to vote to walk into the ballot box.

But when the restrictions might prevent legitimate voters from voting, they need to be reexamined.

In 2008, record voter turnout meant 57 percent of eligible voters went to the ballot box, the highest since 1968.

When a noteworthy number of voters is not even 60 percent, it should be this nation’s priority to make voting as convenient and accessible as possible for all citizens.

The strength of a democratic system relies on government officials’ understanding the will of the public—not just the motivated few, those who can get out of work or those who happen to have an up-to-date identification card.

States are not unreasonable in making sure all voting is done legally.

However, they should temper this goal by also making sure every citizen who wants to vote has the opportunity to do so.

If people are going to claim the political system works, they need to make certain the government is doing the best it possibly can to be inclusive for all individuals.

As the law stands, Indiana and other states seem to be focusing on only safeguarding against fraud—regardless of how real a problem it may be.

News21, the self-proclaimed Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, reported that actual voter fraud occurs only once out of every 15 million prospective voters.

In a nation of 320 million citizens, not all of whom can vote, that’s roughly 21 cases.

The actual number of voter fraud cases is smaller, due to those who are too young or have lost voting rights by being convicted of felonies.

The U.S. faces many other issues.

One of the largest that springs to mind is a consistently frustrated group of people who do not feel represented or protected by the government.

If this nation wants to attempt to address these concerns, the government needs to seriously reconsider the issue of identification restrictions on voting.

“Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

This remark made by Richard Mourdock, Indiana’s Republican Senate candidate, during a recent debate highlights major misperceptions of rape within our culture.

His comment was the most recent in a litany of insensitive statements politicians have made about rape.

From U.S. Representative Todd Akin’s claim about “legitimate rape” to Mourdock’s recent statement, a systemic lack of understanding is apparent.

These comments, though extremely worrying and problematic, are not the main issue.

Instead, the power positioned behind these quips should be examined.

It is not just some average, misogynistic citizen voicing these opinions.

It is a politician and potential congressman, who has the power to craft and legislate laws that could limit people’s rights, specifically women’s.

This observation makes it all the more important for people to be aware of the political system and its effect on the culture.

This awareness should last beyond the election season.

Although it is vital to know the platforms of candidates when voting, people need to understand how politicians enact and express their views during their terms in office.

For instance, all the recent uproar over politicians’ inability to grasp that rape is rape overlooks what Congress is doing now.

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization this year.

But its progress has been stalled because some politicians want to reduce the services and provisions offered by VAWA.

Namely, some Republican Congress members want to slash protections provided under VAWA for undocumented and LGBTQ-identified individuals.

Ultimately, the stagnation of VAWA may prevent it from reaching the Oval Office for the foreseeable future.

These are women’s lives politicians are editing and redacting.

Yet the public hears more about the outlandish remarks a candidate makes during the campaign cycle than the blocking of a necessary piece of legislation.

The statements made by Mourdock and others are deplorable and should be renounced and ridiculed.

But if the limiting of legislation that could combat sexual violence is ignored, those who stand for rape survivors and women’s rights have missed the larger picture.

Citizens and students who are concerned about these issues should not only educate themselves on what Congress is legislating.

They should lobby and write to their representatives about rape culture and how the political sphere bolsters it.

They should form rallies, protests and public forums to discuss these issues.

They need to get active and stay active in the political realm.

Otherwise, the real issues will pass by without any discussion or debate, to the detriment of every citizen.

Butler University students need to recognize that the Student Government Association does much more than entertain students.

Students can and should do more to make their college experience the best it can be.

This cliché does not simply refer to concerts and extracurricular activities but also to activism and making the university a better place for future students.

More specifically, students should ask SGA to develop and protect diversity groups, to lobby for the university’s commitment to a liberal arts education and to build a healthy neighborhood around the university.

Many people distract SGA from examining every one of these important arguments by turning these issues into matters of personal responsibility.

This obsession with individualized duty distracts the student body from the way college structures and institutions affect the lives of everyone in the community.

A few weeks ago, I was speaking to a friend about a frustrating experience I had.

An organization on campus had essentially cost me money out of pocket through what I thought was carelessness.

I often forget this friend is a member of an SGA board.

But when she heard my story, she immediately said she would speak to higher-ups in the university about it.

My specific experience is honestly irrelevant.

On a larger scale, though, this is what SGA is about: solving the problems of students.

It is called Student Government Association for a reason.

There is nothing dramatic about using government to fight for a better student experience.

So students should certainly feel they can ask for better concerts and events—if that is truly the extent of their needs.

But the government can also make recommendations to the administration.

While a student body president cannot demand everything of university officials, he or she can—and does—speak as the voice of the student body.

The president could address campus concerns about issues like our curriculum if we asked him or her to.

At a minimum, SGA should be a preparation for “real” government.

But students should also expect more than just play-acting at being adults.

This is not a criticism of SGA, instead this is a call to the student body that frequently seems to be apathetic about the larger issues.

It seems there is no end to opinions on Smashmouth’s performance last month.

Ask the same impassioned students about the issue of a professional curriculum versus a liberal arts emphasis in the university, and some people shrug apathetically.

Politics, whether they exist on the international, national or university level, matter.

Shirking local politics has dangerous implications for the national arena.

There is no opting out of political life—authorities and institutions define what people are allowed to do, whether citizens participate or not.

In the words of the philosopher Michel Foucault, “You should ask someone who is not interested in politics…Why, damn it, are you not interested?”

Three weeks later,  chalking about abortion has left an indelible mark on Butler University’s communal conscience.

The event prompted the Center for Faith and Vocation to host a public forum for people to discuss the chalking and civil debate in general.

The CFV’s event, “Big Questions: Respecting Differences,” marks what could be a significant shift in Butler’s sociopolitical discussion.

Craig Auchter, associate political science professor, moderated the event.

“I came into this event more interested in how we talk about  a these issues than the issues themselves,” Auchter said. “How do we ultimately foster an environment of respect with such deeply-held beliefs?”

The CFV invited Demia Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and Bulldogs for Life to the discussion.

While several members and executives from Demia showed up, Bulldogs for Life leadership largely declined the opportunity to share its views.

Still, many pro-life individuals not associated with Bulldogs for Life attended, as well as one Bulldogs for Life member.

In this venue, students had the opportunity to express their stance on abortion and how they thought the chalking impacted student thought.

Despite differing views, students enjoyed the opportunity to discuss these issues with one another.

“I really appreciated the conversation,” junior Hannah Varnau, a Demia member, said. “I think it helped people learn how to have more conducive conversations about these tough topics.”

In comparison to the chalking, the public forum was a far more enlightening, informative and human way to structure this discussion.

This sets a new, exceptional precedent for how students bring these heady conversations to the public realm at Butler.

Ultimately, this manner of instigating campus conversation benefits everyone.

Social-issue and political organizations on campus would likely spark more interest for their causes and groups if they hosted more public forum events.

These groups also are less likely to be misinterpreted through an actual conversation than a quickly- scrawled talking point on the sidewalk.

Students would hear a more nuanced back-and-forth about these heavy topics at forums.

This would be especially helpful to those who have not decided where they stand on certain issues yet.

Although it reached a smaller audience, “Big Questions” demonstrates a positive step toward more active, beneficial political discussion, like public forums and rallies would do.

Hopefully, campus organizations continue hosting and encouraging these events and open them to broader audiences.

While the 2008 Presidential Election marked the second-largest group of youth voters in voting history, the conversation regarding the youth vote for the 2012 election has been mum.

And even with the large youth turnout, 18- to 24-year-olds still marked the smallest voting group in the 2008 election.

As a student body and demographic group, Butler University students must turn up at the polls this November for the 2012 Presidential Election.

It is the civic duty of each citizen to vote. Our democracy depends upon its voting system.

Despite this duty, the youth vote has not been nearly as vocal as it was four years ago.

All young adults need to be voting to strengthen the voice of their generation.

Perhaps youth voters are uninformed in terms of politics and government and, therefore, feel uncomfortable placing a vote.

Perhaps they are apathetic toward the election and candidates.

Apathy toward government is far more dangerous than lack of information, but neither are excusable.

The solution is to read up and investigate.

Dissect the platforms for the candidates. Ask questions.

Researching any topic for a short period of time should lead any voter to be both informed and angry about something.

Every U.S. high school senior is required to take a government class for a reason.

Knowledge is power.

In recent months, the discussion of voting has turned to voter identification laws, which require some form of ID to vote, most times with strict photo requirements.

While voting should simply be a right, voter ID laws have made voting in elections a privilege.

To write off your vote due to apathy or lack of political knowledge is to do a disservice to those whose ability to vote has been revoked with the recent policy.

A vote, however small, always counts.

While people across the nation find themselves embroiled in political debate, Butler University locks itself out of the conversation.

The campus lacks frank political discussion.

Current policies block funding to overtly political student organizations on campus.

This moratorium on public debate harms student experience and scholarship.

Students on both ends of the political spectrum think a sweeping change to Butler’s political climate is essential.

“A lot of people come in here with the biases their parents gave them,” the College Democrats President Cole Collins said. “If they do think about their own political views, they don’t participate.”

One of the changes both political groups recommended is releasing previously blocked funds.

“I think the blocked funding to political student groups on campus harms the student body and its ability to discuss these issues,” the College Republicans Chairman Stephanie Hodgin said.

Without money from Student Government Association, these organizations have to seek funding from outside sources, such as Organizing for America and the College Republican National Committee.

This makes it far more difficult for these organizations to create events that involve students in political discussion.

Both Collins and Hodgin said they want to set up debates, host student forums and invite political candidates to campus.

But they lack solid funding to do so.

Butler’s  reluctance  about bringing these discussions to the forefront is understandable, especially if it’s to avoid the appearance of taking sides.

Yet encouraging political debate will ultimately benefit the campus.

If student political organizations had the money to explain their platforms, students would better analyze their own stances and better understand others’ stances.

If political debate and action happened on campus, students would become more involved in the community and unlearn the stereotypes they may have about the “other side.”

If Butler invited politicians and political activists to campus more often, more students might be willing to enter the political foray.

Another problem is that the administration does not allow SGA members to openly express their opinions in the public sphere.

SGA President Mike Keller said he notices the lack of honest political conversations and hopes to rework the policy.

“I think it would be an improvement to the campus to relax the policy a little bit since it’s a little broad,” Keller said.

Keller formed a new SGA position, the director of external affairs, in order to bring more candidates to school and involve students in the political process.

Butler administrators are currently considering reworking this policy with SGA.

But for now,  students are waiting to see some concrete changes.

“They should just fund College Democrats, College Republicans and Student for Liberty equally,” Collins said. “Even $100 would help each group set up events.”

A little over a month ago, a filibuster by Sen. John McCain effectively blocked a defense bill that contained an amendment which would have repealed the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Personally, I am opposed to “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  I feel that anyone willing to serve and protect his or her country should be given the right to do so.  I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, regardless of sexual orientation.

The “Murphy Amendment,” which contained the clause that would have repealed the policy, was attached to the Defense Authorization bill that failed in a vote of 56-43 last month.

Many gay and lesbian activists were optimistic about the passage of this bill and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. As the bill failed, many individuals became concerned that it would be quite some time before this debate was brought up for a vote again.

However, just last week the Obama White House made clear that the repeal of this dated policy is a priority of the administration.

According to advocate.com, sources from within the White House speaking anonymously, presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messima held a private meeting with parties interested in a legislative appeal of the policy.

One could assume that the Obama White House and Congressional Democrats are planning a repeal of the policy in the upcoming session when members return from the elections.

The issue of gays serving in the military has been an issue for generations, but “don’t ask, don’t tell” was created in 1992.

During his Presidential campaign, Clinton vowed to lift the ban on gays in the military.  However, the initial attempt failed and Congress passed a law that stated gays had every right to serve as long as they did not reveal their orientation.

This brings us to the debate that we have today.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about the repeal.

This past attempt was the wrong way.

First, the defense bill that the Murphy Amendment was attached to also had another amendment: the DREAM Act.  This amendment, authored by Sen. Harry Reid, sought to give individuals who entered the United States before reaching the age of 16 and have lived here for five years a path to citizenship.

Obviously, an immigration amendment has no place on a defense bill.

Secondly, no drastic measures should be made on the policy until the Department of Defense can conduct a thorough assessment of what repealing the policy would do.

In late April of this year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen sent a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton.

In the letter, Gates and Mullen said that an immediate passage and removal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would “send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter.”

This is a very valid point and, as we speak, the Department of Defense is compiling the input of thousands of service members to place in an official report to be presented to President Obama Dec. 1.

If “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed overnight, its effects on the military could be deadly, as Gates and Mullen pointed out.  That’s why I feel no decisions should be made until their final report is published.

I hope to see this policy changed at some point in my lifetime. However, it should be done consciously, smoothly and effectively.

When it was certain that President Barack Obama would be the first sitting president to appear on “The Daily Show,” a perfect storm was brewing for Jon Stewart.

Not only would Stewart be interviewing the leader of the free world, but it was perfect publicity for his “Rally to Restore Sanity”, held in Washington, D.C., Saturday.

His interview with President Obama took place on Oct 27 and, unlike Stewart’s previous interviews with high ranking politicians—John Kerry in 2004—no softballs were offered up to the President.

“You ran with such, if I may, audacity, yet legislatively it has felt timid at times,” Stewart said, speaking on the President’s term in office so far.

“Jon, I love your show, but this is something where I have a profound disagreement with you,”  Obama said.

This was the most tense moment in the interview, but Stewart kept it lighthearted after this. He kept the interview rolling and, at one point, even referred to the President as “dude.”

The interview went off without a hitch, showing Stewart’s diligence is paying off and garnering him respect from many people and news networks for his fake news show. He wasn’t named 2009’s “most trusted man in America” by Time magazine’s online readership  for nothing.

The Wednesday interview was just a drop in the bucket for Stewart, though. His, along with Stephen Colbert’s, “Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Keep Fear Alive” held on the National Mall was the spectacle of the weekend.

An estimated 215,000 people showed up, giving the sense that most Americans still believe in politics but are upset by the way it is being administered.

Butler students who attended the rally had different expectations on what they were about to witness.

Butler senior Christy Hazuka was expecting more of a comedy show than a political one.

“I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I don’t really watch ‘The Daily Show’ and the ‘Colbert Report’ as much as other people probably do,” Hazuka said. “I don’t think the audience really expected a political rally and I thought it was more of a comedic event.”

In reality it was a combination of both.

Although the musical acts, which included Yusuf Islam, Ozzy Osbourne, Jeff Tweedy, John Legend, The Roots, Kid Rock and Sheryl Crow, made it look like an all-star concert, some expected a political rally. In senior Reid Dvorak’s opinion, they got one.

“The highlight of the show was the keynote speech by Stewart at the end of the rally,” Dvorak said. “Even if there wasn’t music, celebs or even [Stephen] Colbert, the rally was still good.”

Stewart capped the rally with a 12-minute speech about his opinion on what is wrong with the country and how it could be fixed.

“We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is: on the brink of catastrophe, torn by polarizing hate and how its a shame how we can’t work together to get things done,” Stewart said. “But the truth is, we do. We work together to get things done every damn day.”

Stewart’s message on how the media is partly responsible for the country’s political situation was well received by those in attendance, including Dvorak and those around him.

“His speech was simple but it was damn good,” Dvorak said. “He really delivered it well.”

So whether the occasionon Saturday was a comedic event or a political rally,  something all  in attendance could agree on were that the  rally signs people brought were genuinely funny and entertaining.

Junior Lauren Jones saw the rally signs as having great entertainment value.

“There were a lot of different people and groups in attendance who had some good signs,” she said.

So whether you agree with Stewart’s political views or not, the rally showed that overall, America must keep a sense of humor and try to maintain its sanity.

Stewart is doing his best to maintain both for us.