There are Trump supporters in our community.

It may be hard to believe, and even harder to imagine. But make no mistake – there indubitably exist non-facetious local Trump supporters. But they are silent – and wisely so, for they are vastly outnumbered would face sharp censure from their peers should they make their sentiments known.

These regional political minorities cannot make their voices heard – when overwhelmed by a majority, a contrarian vote amounts to nothing. This is a result to the unique structuring of the electoral college.

In reality, the American voting process is not truly democratic. When citizens cast their votes at the poll, they aren’t directly voting for their candidate – instead, they’re voting for regional electors who have pledged their votes to a candidate. It is these electors that comprise the 538 votes for president.

However, these electors are awarded per state in a quantized, discrete fashion. A single state may be contested neck and neck, but ultimately all of that state’s votes will be awarded to only one candidate (except for the exception states of Nebraska and Maine). That 48 percent of the popular vote ascribed to the losing candidate in a hotly contested state is worth nothing. No electors are awarded in their name, and half of an entire state’s opinion is wholly disregarded.

This effect greatly dampens voter turnout. Minority voters aware that their candidate will lose in their state may feel discouraged from voting, believing that it cannot influence the election – somewhat rightly.

For example, California is very left – the chance of Trump winning the state was practically zero. Even though there are easily hundreds of thousands of Californian citizens who would have voted for Trump, their votes are ultimately meaningless, and many of them acknowledged that. Clinton would take California, and any individual’s vote for Trump couldn’t have changed that outcome. The converse attitude holds true as well – many of those who would have voted for Clinton in California, confident of her victory, didn’t vote.

This harsh reality dampens voter turnout in both directions. Contrarian voters, outnumbered, may opt not to vote out of fruitlessness. And in more extreme cases, the complacency of majority voters can cause a statewide upset.

Moreover, the electoral vote is unequal. Each state is assigned a number of electors based on its population, but the voters per elector ratio is variable throughout each state.

An elector in California represents about 700,000 voters – but a elector in Wyoming represents about 200,000 voters. What this amounts to is that the Wyoming citizen’s vote effectively counts three times as much as the California citizen’s vote. This broad trend is observed between the larger states and the smaller states, giving the residents of smaller states undue influence in the election.

I believe that a viable and appealing way to amend these shortcomings without completely overhauling the electoral college is by regionalizing votes to counties.

Within a state, individual counties show great variability in alignment. For instance, while the overall state of Tennessee voted overwhelmingly Republican – according to the New York Times, 65.5% to a Democratic 30.6% – individual counties were strongly Democratic. Davidson County, the district containing Nashville, voted 60.4% Democratic to 34.3% Republican.

By having these individual counties represent electoral votes instead, minority voters would gain greater representation even when greatly outnumbered within a single state. The term of “minority” is also somewhat misleading – the losing party often commands as much as 30% of the vote, or even up to half. This is the great injustice of the electoral college – that such a large portion of the voting constituency literally does not count in the electoral college at all.

This change would increase voter turnout by legitimizing contrarian votes, creating a more democratic voting process.

Moreover, we might expect benefits from increased voter turnout beyond the presidential election. Minority voter apathy resulting from their lack of representation creates a culture of abstaining, spilling over into other elections as well. But by reassuring voters that their votes truly matter, they will be encouraged to participate in other votes as well.

Voters’ opinions and actions would be able to effect greater change in the election – a regional minority would be able to rally their surrounding community in support of their cause and actually change the outcome of their county’s vote. But in the current system, this is impossible – no regional activist can reasonably persuade an entire state.

Altogether, the localization of electoral votes would increase regional participation both in voting and in political organization.

“Wrong…wrong…wrong.” Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s words echoed through my living room as news outlets replayed his response to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton after the first presidential debate.

My dad and I, avid watchers of the debate, were on the verge of laughing at the absurdity of the situation, among several others of Trump’s comments. In that moment, we smiled at how childish this presidential candidate was acting, but as news commentators continued reporting on the issue, the thought of Trump actually becoming our president worried me.

From the other candidate, Clinton, I’ve had my fair share of “this is absurd” moments, from learning about Clinton’s receiving of presidential debate questions beforehand to repeated stories resurfacing about new details on the email controversy.

However, as we entered Election Day, a day crucial in determining our nation’s course over the next four years, the election was no longer a laughing matter. It shouldn’t be about choosing the “lesser of the two evils,” the “less corrupt” candidate or the one who will do the least damage to our country. I 100 percent agree that both the candidates are on completely different levels of “evil” and that one has spoken such things that time and again made us question the validity of his or her position as a presidential nominee.

But just because one nominee may be “better,” it doesn’t mean the “better” candidate is who we must choose as a nation. This is about the person who is going to represent our country for the next four years, not about cheating to win or “out-trash-talking” the opponent.

Sure, both candidates have their positives, things they’ve successfully accomplished, like Trump’s multibillion dollar company and Clinton’s previously held offices. But we aren’t a country that should compromise and settle for an okay candidate.

That is why, for the first time, the discussion of researching third party candidates became a prevalent topic in my household. While no candidate is perfect, this election opened my eyes to the possibilities of examining third party candidates and keeping my options open: my dad and I weren’t fine sitting on our couch laughing at the ridiculous drama between the two candidates; we wanted to support candidates who put our country first and their drama last. Having a third party system broadens the candidate pool and provides voters with a mixture of viewpoints, not only two opposing candidates.

This election isn’t about being a Democrat or a Republican or a third party supporter, and neither should any subsequent election. It’s about choosing the right leader for our country. And despite all the hatred and controversy this election has received, I truly believe that there is always something good that can come out of something questionable.

This year, what I’m hoping this election elicits is redirected attention to what future elections in our nation can be normalized to. Our government has been successful with this two-party system for decades now, but that doesn’t mean we can’t change. This election has taught me that it isn’t necessary to stick to the norm because we shouldn’t have to be limited to two candidates.

I’m hoping that our future elections will be open to a multi-party system where multiple candidates will have the opportunity to be our president. Our country deserves change if it will better our future. I don’t want to settle. The United States of America shouldn’t have to settle.

In my opinion, tonight, we are settling for the next four years with Donald J. Trump as our future president. And all I can hope for now is that Trump puts aside all his drama and focuses on reasonable measures to put our country first. We can’t live the next four years under a facade of lies, so I truly hope that our new president will tell the truth, make responsible decisions for our nation and represent our country the way we deserve to be represented to other countries.

The real question is, in the future, how do we not settle for candidates? Voting for the candidate that seems most appropriate in the available pool seems like the natural solution, but we need to be more critical of candidates early in the nomination process and encourage people with diverse political views to enter politics and expand our candidate pool for future elections.

During an election cycle of personal attacks, divisive rhetoric, and uninformed discourse, the remarks of presidential candidates have ignited public debate on responsible speech and the coexistence of civility and free speech.

Civility can bridge ideological divides. Consider the friendship of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Though their views on most issues fell at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, mutual respect and understanding enabled them to engage in constructive disagreement.

Our republic is built upon the notion of a free and equal exchange of ideas, and our political leaders must provide models of civil discourse to which American citizens can aspire. As we move forward into a decade of new challenges and paradoxes and disagreement, all eyes will be on our elected representatives to set the tone of our national discourse.

Few elections in recent history have been characterized by such salient incivility as the present. Republican nominee Donald Trump has set the dangerous precedent of employing demagoguery and dog whistles to exploit electoral fear for political gain, as voters have not punished him for his words and actions at the polls. While past elections have also been polarized, this cycle is noticeably devoid of the collegiality that existed between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and the mutual respect shared by Obama and John McCain.

Throughout the course of his candidacy, Trump has favored ad hominem attacks over substantive debate. Instead of enumerating specific policy proposals, he has resorted to personal attacks.

Free speech is critical to rational and constructive debate, but Trump’s divisive rhetoric isn’t merely politically incorrect or irresponsible – his dangerous language has helped to foment violence.

He has chosen to use his right to free speech to abdicate personal responsibility, ignoring the importance of responsible speech and the consequences of his words. He is concerned with the freedom of expression, but only for himself; he does not afford the same first amendment rights he aggressively touts to others.

It falls on the public to reject the precedent Trump and his political contemporaries have set. Living in an increasingly polarized political climate, we must remind ourselves of the importance of civil discourse despite the behavior of our presidential candidates. As we go forth in the world, we’ll encounter people of diverse backgrounds, experiences and belief systems. These differences in thought will inevitably engender disagreement, and we may find that the exercise of one person’s freedom conflicts with another’s. Freedoms suppose responsibilities and when confronting more and more complex issues, we must remember to remain civil and informed to maintain constructive debate.

Our candidates should set the standard, not lower it – presidential debates should educate society on how to respectfully disagree.