{shortcode-d01a34e7a7eab151d332d82dcfb9dda1a35ee305}

I am turning 21 this year, and have been preparing for two things: Having my first drink and voting in my first presidential election.

While I feel more than ready for the former, I am uncertain that I have been adequately prepared to cast my ballot.

Although I have received plenty of information on voting logistics — including step-by-step instructions to request a mail-in ballot courtesy of the Harvard Votes Challenge — I am a bit ashamed to admit that I don’t really know what exactly I am voting for.

My top priority was deciding how to vote for president. As a busy student, I relied on both the presidential and vice presidential debates to learn about the candidate’s four-year agendas. But between the constant mudslinging and invective, I found it difficult to follow a cogent and compelling argument from either candidate.

Instead of proposing strategies to help decrease the price of groceries or to address the multitude of issues vexing America, both candidates embraced rhetoric as inflammatory as it is vague. Between calls for world peace and a better nation, the most I could glean from former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during their debate is that they both want an abstract notion of ‘change.’

What I still lack is a clear understanding of how they plan to effectuate that change or what it really means.

To reconcile this lack of information from the waggish — albeit entertaining — debates, I had no choice but to turn to news media outlets to learn more about the candidate’s platforms. However, I found this unhelpful, as articles from reputable sources like the BBC, present rather dense and sanitized accounts of candidates’ policies difficult to square with the hyperbolic statements on Twitter and Instagram.

It’s becoming harder and harder to discern fact from fallacy. And even though I consider reputable primary sources more seriously than other forms of media, I am aware that other’s opinions and ideas have shaped my decision-making.

I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that my vote will be informed as much by the way these candidates are packaged as by what they’d actually do: who else is supporting them, their demeanor, and the quality of their ads. I feel like I am electing a figurehead, rather than a leader who will make decisions with global ramifications.

It’s just as bad on the local level. Election Day brings a slew of local and state questions to the ballot on which I’m eager to position myself. But despite the barrage of texts and emails from candidates flooding my phone, I’m still left in the dark about their policies and platforms. I know now that one candidate for local government is a lawyer, and another is backed by the Democratic Party. That’s hardly enough context to reach an informed decision.

When I got my mail-in ballot a couple of weeks ago, I decided to use my 19th Amendment right to vote for the only three issues on the ballot which I understood as being critically consequential after doing my own research. I can’t imagine what it would be like for individuals working multiple jobs, raising a family, or too busy to painstakingly scrutinize political issues.

I understand that the presidential election is a competition. But I wish it at least looked more like the Olympic Games than reality TV. It feels like I am back in middle school voting for class president, judging every 12-year-old candidate for their campaign poster’s glitter-to-marker ratio. Unfortunately, the stakes for this election are much greater than choosing the best homecoming dance theme.

I can only hope that my engagement with future elections will not feel so shallow. Although the onus is on citizens to get out and vote, it is up to the candidates and political parties to provide concrete evidence on their platforms, ensuring every voter casts a ballot they are confident about.

Candidates, it’s time to cut through the fluff and showmanship and get real for the sake of our democracy.

Sandhya Kumar ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a joint concentrator in Molecular & Cellular Biology and Statistics in Winthrop House.