George Washington, before leaving his post as president, said something to the effect of, “Guys, don’t split up into parties. It’ll ruin everything.” Oh how very right he was. These parties he speaks of, let’s face it, are fractured. The presidential election of 2016 has turned into a knock-down-drag-out, mud-slinging fight–the worst we’ve ever faced in modern times.

Digging through all this bipartisan slime has not been fun for the voters. They need to see basic facts.

For instance, former Secretary of State, First Lady and Congresswoman Hillary Clinton has actual experience for the job. Businessman Donald Trump has never held public office. This ought to be the deciding factor of the election, right? Apparently not.

This election has become about race, women’s rights, freedom of the press, religion and respect for democracy. Trump has challenged all of these and more while Clinton has defended them.

Clinton’s platform sounds like the average candidate running for president. She would do things like lower middle class taxes, make college affordable, maintain women’s rights.

Trump’s campaign has become a reality game show, and it’s scary that this is what has led people to vote for him. Trump would do things like build border walls, reduce women’s rights, deport 11 million people and lessen the power of the First Amendment. These are basic freedoms our forefathers fought wars to establish.

In a recent poll of the student body, students were asked to consider both candidates’ platforms on the major issues as given by ballotpedia.org, but the platforms were not labeled with the candidates’s names, which forced students to actually consider the issues. A majority chose Clinton’s platform on eight out of 10 issues, which under normal circumstances would give the candidate a landslide victory.

Even if voters don’t believe the candidates’ platforms, the price of the candidates’s plans show what it would cost America. Independent economic analysis shows that Clinton would raise the national debt by $200 billion, while Trump’s plan would increase it by $5.3 trillion.

That reduces the election to a simple math problem, doesn’t it?

Why do people resist Clinton so much when everything she says actually makes sense? Is it exactly like what Obama faced eight years ago because of his race? Are prejudices the reasons behind reluctance toward Clinton as president? Just as men were reluctant to give women the right to vote until 1919, perhaps it’s the same with having a woman as president.

John Adams might have warned that the “two-party system is the greatest evil under our Constitution,” but we didn’t listen, and now we must reap what we have sown. The point of an election is to pick the more qualified candidate, not the most colorful or controversial person. That means the choice should be clear. So why isn’t it?