Once again, about a third of those who voted in Utah County took the easy way out.

In this year's election, 36 percent of voters used the option where they could, by marking one box, vote for every candidate belonging to a particular party. Since 1998, the percentage of straight-party voters has averaged 33.5 percent of the votes cast. While most were cast by Republicans, there also were Democrats, Libertarians and members of other political parties who likewise cast straight-party votes.

Utah is among three states -- with Alabama and New Mexico -- that permit this kind of voting. Utah should join the rest of the country and require voters to actually vote for the individual.

The straight-party vote option encourages intellectual laziness. No need to delve any further into a candidate's platform than to see if he has an elephant, donkey or other party symbol on his campaign sign. There isn't even a need to know who's running since everyone under a party's banner gets a vote. The only way it could get any easier for a shiftless voter is if someone else pushed the button for him.

That is not the type of voting our nation's founders expected. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others envisioned voters who had a grasp of the issues and knew the candidates for whom they were voting. Part of the premise of the Electoral College was the public voted for people they knew who had a greater familiarity with the presidential candidates and national issues who would then select the president.

Straight-party voters tend to view a party label as a brand name, believing that Party X consistently represents a particular position on the issues. The problem is, candidates are not cans of soda or boxes of cereal that have guaranteed qualities. People are a little harder to fit within a particular label.

Take U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson for example. Some would think that because he is a Democrat he has permissive views on abortion and will vote to squander money at the drop of a hat. However, Matheson has voted to ban partial-birth abortion and against increasing congressional salaries. Matheson's self-described "radical moderate" stance is lost on people who can't get past the stereotype of a Democrat.

Likewise, former New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2008, considers himself a good Republican even though his views on abortion would get him unceremoniously thrown out of a Utah Republican meeting.

Blindly following party labels not only forecloses consideration of good people, but good ideas as well. We've seen many a good bill at the Utah Legislature die because the sponsor had the misfortune of having a "D" after his or her name in the Legislative Directory. For example, then-Rep. Pat Jones, D-Salt Lake City, proposed legislation to remove the child exemption from the state income tax as a way to make school funding more equitable. Her plan did not get the hearing it deserved in large part because of her party affiliation.

Another problem with the single-party vote is that those voters who use it think their work is done after hitting their party's button. They may ignore judicial retention races, school board contests, initiatives, referenda, public questions or constitutional amendments that appear on the ballot. Voters should take the time to weigh in on all the issues on the ballot, even if it means taking a little extra time.

Eliminating the straight-party vote option won't stop people from casting all their votes for the party of their choice. It would mean that they would have to cast a vote for each and every candidate the party put on the ballot. Looking at each name may cause some voters to stop and think about the people they are voting for, and that's not a bad idea.

When the Legislature returns to Capitol Hill in January, it should eliminate the straight-party vote and get Utahns to cast more informed ballots.