"'Twas Halloween and the ghosts were out, and everywhere they'd go, they shout ...

"But fear's the only thing I saw, and three days later 'twas clear to all, that nothing is as scary as election day." - from "My Dear Country," sung and written by Nora Jones

Caution is warranted in this time for ghosts, candidates, and other beasties; sorting one from the other is no game of tricks or treats. Not to malign anyone specific - to hold office is an honorable thing and thank goodness that it still attracts honorable people. I do believe most earnestly try to do what they believe is right, and work very hard to earn the public's trust. Hats off to them.

Yet even the most honorable among politicians face quite the challenge in the election process. What a challenge it is to convey one's entire mindset to a modern public who statistically (a) doesn't have the attention span to read, unless the alleged "news" item brightly flashes anew every few seconds, (b) is so apathetic he probably doesn't know the name of the current governor, let alone coroner, and (c) remembers only partisan sound bites, not detailed positions on society's complex issues.

So what can a frustrated candidate do? Whittle the message down to a few words on just a few of so many relevant issues, and repeat, repeat, repeat. Yes, that's of necessity. But the routine is more than this, especially in attack ads, and here's where the conscientious voter must wade carefully among the tricks of the politicking trade: framing.

Framing is more than mere sound-bite; it's word selection designed to elicit heightened emotions - commonly fear and patriotism.

To vote against well-framed messages therefore makes one feel risky or unpatriotic. Nobody wants that.

Never mind the actual position, person, or issue here. We're talking feelings. That's what framed messages target, and we are gullible enough that it often works. Add to the marketing of a candidate or ballot item evocative words such as, "terror" (which implies urgency), "freedom" (which implies suppression), "relief" (which implies affliction), and "family" (which evokes protection), so voting against anything thus labeled makes one seem like a bad person.

Earlier this year I wrote about a national study regarding American perceptions of scientific issues which framed the same survey questions two ways. Predictably, different responses resulted - same issues, different word choice. The more emotionally evocative the words, the more responses shift.

Framing isn't necessarily intended so, but it does tend to manipulate. We all do it. Observe yourself for a week in everyday communications with others, examine subconscious word choices, look for adjectives and either-or scenarios. Ask yourself if those choices might been to elicit a particular response. It's human nature, but it's also surmountable by simple observation.

The caution here is to think past framing. You're not a puppet whose strings can be so easily pulled by evocative words. Never mind the catch phrases and sound bites; ask what's behind them, ask what you're being steered away from, and why. Maybe the position matches yours, but decide on the merits, not the marketing pitch.

Did those words evoke emotion? Put it aside, examine issues important to you and research the full position. Thanks to the web, it's out there and in your newspaper, but read both views - for and against, or better yet, neutral - to get closer to a full picture on what's relevant to that office before voting Nov. 4.

One frame never reveals a full picture.

Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a former lobbyist and a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at sholeh@cdapress.com.