In the past few weeks, voters have listened to two debates, read a ton of news stories, watched a thousand commercials and received hundreds of pieces of campaign mail. All that, and I still don’t have the foggiest idea who I will vote for in a few weeks.

I think there are many who feel the same way.

One reason that it’s so tough to decide is because we are overwhelmed with words and images, commercials and debates. We listen to the candidates themselves and the political “experts” who are supposed to break it all down and tell us what it all means. There’s so much clamor from both sides that it’s difficult to sort it out. Seriously, you don’t know who to believe.

In the midst of this tumult, I stumbled across a great idea.

The Associated Press reported last week that two Congressional candidates in Jasper, Ind., have agreed to be hooked up to lie detectors during a debate.

This might possibly be a stroke of pure genius. So, of course, it will never happen.

But the idea surfaced as Democrat incumbent Baron Hill is set to debate Republican challenger Mike Sodrel. The two have run against each other four times. Mr. Sodrel beat Mr. Hill in 2004, but Hill won the seat back in 2006.

My guess is that if you face an opponent four times, things are liable to get nasty, truth suffers and each candidate digs up enough muck to throw at his opponent. I mean, in four campaigns, what issues are left to debate? All that’s left is to do is spin things your direction or make wild accusations.

That’s probably why the local Republican Party Chairman Larry Shickles proposed the political polygraphs.

The AP quotes Mr. Shickles as saying, “While this format may be unusual, I feel strongly that voters need to be able to make a clear decision without all the usual spin.”

This week, the News-Press and St. Joe Now are hosting a debate between 6th District Congressional candidates Republican Sam Graves and Democrat Kay Barnes. Wouldn’t it be great if we could hook them up to a lie detector, then show the results on a small “lie-o-meter” at the bottom of your television screen?

Ms. Barnes, do you really have San Francisco values?

Mr. Graves, what exactly was your involvement with the Show-Me Ethanol plant in Carrollton, Mo.?

Kay, did you really raise taxes by more than $1 billion and, while mayor, increase Kansas City’s debts more than 300 percent?

Sammy, just exactly how many airplanes are listed on your personal property tax statement?

For each answer, the lie-o-meter could measure outright lies, half-truths and spin. If either candidate strays even a little bit from the truth, the lie-o-meter flashes yellow. Stray further from the truth, it flashes red and starts beeping. Tell a whopper and red lights flash and sirens go off.

This could revolutionize politics.

Wow. Politicians forced to tell the truth. Next thing you know, executives at large corporations will start turning down million-dollar bonuses.

Of course, the lie-o-meter suggestion does have a couple of flaws. You’ve probably guessed what they are. First, you’d need a politician to tell the complete and whole truth on one question so you could have a baseline measurement. That might be a stretch.

Also, a lie detector measures a person’s bodily response to detect behavior that is assumed to be untruthful. In order to defeat a lie detector, you need to show no response to a lie. In other words, you’ve got to be a world-class prevaricator.

Hmmm … a politician versus a lie detector.

Who would you bet on?

Steve Booher’s column runs on Mondays