It's time to admit the obvious: The U.S. political system is a very sick patient. Voter apathy is slipping toward voter cynicism. Politics, to a lot of people, looks less like a civic virtue than a dirty game that's best avoided.

In Minnesota, 400 spots on local ballots went blank because no candidates were willing to run for office, and only half of the state's eligible voters bothered to show up for the midterm election last week. As this page opined on Wednesday, those are anemic numbers by this state's lofty standards. They leave no room for our usual smugness, even when compared with an embarrassing national turnout rate of 36.4 percent, the lowest in 72 years.

It's possible, of course, to explain away the downward trend by claiming that, with all the pressures of modern life, people are too busy to participate, or that there's no one to serve on local boards in many rural areas because of declining and aging populations and because women too often aren't asked to serve.

But this page holds fast to the principle that maximum participation in democracy is a proper thing. When participation falls, it's good to examine the possible reasons, especially when the blame rests largely on the political process itself.

These are some of the self-inflicted wounds that continue to spread cynicism among potential candidates and voters:

• Failure to value public service. The many blank ballots for local offices and high proportion of uncontested elections in Minnesota, including for the Legislature, suggest that those jobs aren't as appealing as they once were. In some cases, low compensation is part of the problem. Public-sector salaries that were frozen during the Great Recession should now thaw. But we suspect that a lack of respect engendered by years of government-bashing is also taking a toll. Even when compensation is reasonable, service in elective office requires personal sacrifice. It deserves appreciation, not scorn.

• Negative advertising. Midterm voting began to decline in 1966, about the time television expanded its influence on politics. Since then, TV advertising has descended to the level of self-parody. Consultants continue to believe that "going negative" wins elections, and maybe it does; it also turns thoughtful people away from a process that comes across as ugly and unsavory. The motivation for those who do vote or run for office is too often hatred of the other side.

As for political news coverage, shortcomings fall less on politicians and their handlers than on the media themselves. One sign of the times is that people rely increasingly on news parodies, like "The Daily Show," rather than on conventional sources. There's little doubt that the niche appeal of cable, the Internet and social media has deepened the partisan divide and sharpened the personal attack. "Why should I put my family through this?" is a common theme among those who decide not to run for public office.

• Failure to control money. Nationwide, candidates and interest groups spent a record $4 billion this midterm to generate the lowest voter turnout since 1942. The unmistakable message: More money equals less democracy. Undisclosed cash has been a problem in politics since the days of the brown paper bag, but two Supreme Court rulings have made matters far worse.

Buckley vs. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United vs. the FEC (2010) made unlimited campaign spending inseparable from free speech, thereby legitimizing the notion that the more money you can raise, the more free speech you can have. It's not unreasonable for ordinary Americans to conclude that democracy is for sale to the highest bidders.

• Lack of bipartisanship. Although the hyperpartisanship that paralyzes Congress reflects genuine ideological differences, the overall effect is to diminish belief in government's ability to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Even in Minnesota, one can imagine more moderate members of the two major parties deciding not to seek office because the entrenched power of special interest groups impedes bipartisanship.

Many reforms have been suggested to increase voter and candidate participation in the United States, including moving elections to Sundays and shortening the campaign cycle. Eliminating midterms altogether would give one side or the other more room to pursue a governing program. But the U.S. Constitution makes changes unlikely, as do powerful political incentives to keep the status quo.

Significant change won't come until citizens acknowledge that the system is flawed and that little will change until they become more conscientious stewards of the representative democracy they've inherited.