Election day is welcomed and celebrated in this country as the culmination of the democratic process — a system that is supposed to make our representative government accountable and self-correcting. It ensures a government of, by, and for the people. Having just endured yet another election campaign marked by a dizzying amount of spin, misdirection, and hyperbole, however, we understand that the modern practice of democracy may be getting most of its vigor and power not from “the people” but from vast sums of money with indistinct sources and purposes. We take consolation, though, from the words of Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried.”

The partisan clash of spin, misdirection, and hyperbole that resulted in the reelection on Tuesday of Dannel P. Malloy for another four years offered competing exaggerated claims of doom and redemption drawn in black and white, which frankly left the many voters seeking more substance in their politics feeling a little blue. In truth, the fiscal options for any administration in the coming years, Republican or Democratic, are narrowly prescribed — in red ink. While there was much debate during the campaign about the rise and fall of spending and taxes, very little was said about the budget gaps looming in the next two-year state budget. According to the state’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis, the fiscal package due to be delivered to the legislature in February will start off with a projected $1.37 billion shortfall in revenues in the first year followed by another $1.58 billion gap in the second.

State law requires the legislature to adopt a balanced budget. Facing a deficit of $3.7 billion when he took office four years ago, Gov Malloy spent significant amounts of his newly minted political capital increasing taxes, wringing concessions from state employee unions, and streamlining the state’s workforce, while sustaining aid to towns and cities. It was a good start. Still, balancing budgets required the governor to use some of the same dubious fiscal expediencies he ran against in 2010, including borrowing to pay operating expenses and even the interest on previous debt. It is unclear just how much political capital Gov Malloy has this time around or whether his budget office has any more fiscal tricks up its sleeve.

The object of all the borrowing is to buy time until the state’s economy comes roaring back from the prolonged downturn, turning deficits into surpluses. Connecticut’s anemic emergence from the recession, however, has only prolonged the fiscal agony in Hartford and put off investments in the state’s transportation infrastructure and educational opportunities throughout the state, which are prerequisites for strong and sustained economic growth.

Now that the so-called campaign debate of issues has concluded, we are eager for the real debate about Connecticut’s future to begin in Hartford. Success will depend on how quickly this election year’s spin, misdirection, and hyperbole dissipates, so a real bipartisan discussion can begin.