After weeks of a rude British critic insulting talented singers in front of millions of riveted fans, "American Idol" climaxed to a breath-taking finish two weeks ago, leaving millions of viewers aching for more Ruben, more Clay and yes, more rude British critic.

As a sign of the show's popularity, 24 million people voted in the tally to determine the final winner.

Compared to the latest national election, in 2002, when roughly 80 million people cast their ballots, 24 million does not seem overwhelming, especially since many viewers of "American Idol" likely cast multiple votes. However, considering the 80 million votes were cast during an entire day, after months of campaigning, and the 24 million votes during "American Idol" were cast during a span of mere minutes, 24 million looks very impressive.

Of course, our democracy is hardly in trouble. Despite the scandals and the overt partisanship, both major political parties attempt to remain near the political mainstream, ensuring that even low voter turnout results in a relatively inoffensive government. However, an election with 80 million voters out of the 162 million that are registered, not to mention the millions that are not registered, is not the strongest showing of voter turnout. How do we increase voter participation and decrease voter apathy?

Singing contests are clearly not an option. Most politicians can sing no better than the rest of us (although the thought of Michigan College Republicans Chair and State News columnist Jason Miller with a hip, young, pop-star image is remotely intriguing.)

Thus, I propose an alternative solution: Democracy should respond to citizens with the exact same intensity as citizens respond to democracy.

For instance, the Secretary of State's Office could have two lines, one for voters and one for non-voters. No non-voter would be served until after all voting citizens finished their business. Voting would be much less of a nuisance compared to an endless line when renewing a license.

Another example could be federal financial aid for college students. If a student votes, he or she can qualify for federal aid. If a student fails to vote, too bad. This policy would exempt students who were too young to vote in an election before entering college, but these students could still lose their financial aid if they afterward failed to vote. Why should federal financial aid flow to students who are too lazy to ensure it keeps coming?

A third example could be exemption from telemarketing "do-not-call" lists. Not only could telemarketers access non-voters' phone numbers, but each non-voter would be one of a decreasing number of consumers called by an ever-increasing number of telemarketers. What is worse: participating in democracy like a decent American citizen or waking up at 4:30 in the morning to a robotic voice asking if your long-distance service is adequate?

Some of these policies would have to be implemented by the states; others, by the federal government. All are at least somewhat feasible, if slightly ruthless. Moreover, these policies could be introduced gradually. Qualify every voter who cast a ballot in 2000 or 2002 or decides to cast a ballot in 2004. Then, every person who votes at least once every two years remains qualified.

Exemptions could be made for anyone with an extremely debilitating or life-threatening ailment, or who, for some reason, does not have legitimate access to a ballot. Also, Election Day could be a paid vacation holiday (move another paid holiday to coincide with it, if necessary), removing an excuse for not voting.

Under this plan, no one is forced to vote, and no explicit, immediate penalty exists for failing to vote. Non-voters can't complain, though, when the democratically elected government performs better for voters than it does for non-voters.

Furthermore, the beauty of this plan for elected officials is that it will do nothing to irritate voters. Indeed, voters likely will see their government services improve. Non-voters might become angry, but what are they going to do? They cannot cogently express their disapproval unless they vote, and once they vote, they no longer have a reason to stay irritated - i.e. this plan has succeeded.

Finally, on a preemptive side note to any outraged non-voters who have completed reading this column and are planning to write a scathing letter to the e-mail address below: Are you too lazy to participate in American democracy, but yet still have time to write an e-mail to a complete stranger in the middle of the day?

Voting public, fire away.

Andrew Goetz is the president of the MSU College Democrats. Reach him at goetzand@msu.edu.