We dwell in complexity, yet in seeking to address huge needs the democratic way, we run the risk of dumbing down and oversimplifying important issues.

Democracy demands, for instance, that we be anti-abortion or pro-abortion, though often the circumstances that lead a woman to the point of having to decide on whether to end her pregnancy or not are wrenchingly difficult. Polling and dueling public relations campaigns have reduced the issue of rail poised to go before voters in Honolulu to a similar stark choice.

Let the voters decide. On the surface, that looks like a good thing. Except what we know of polling behavior should offer us lessons that go beyond the simple outcomes of how many are for rail or how many are against it. When people who are for rail will not necessarily ride it themselves, and when people who are against it believe there are better solutions or that this particular solution costs too much, it's time for leaders to step in and, well, lead.

Mayor Mufi Hannemann showed early signs of being willing to do so. He was willing to make a decision and act on it. He was willing to do what was clearly unpopular in some quarters and he is now even willing to acknowledge that putting rail on the ballot might be a good thing after all. But is it? Is this an issue that we can afford to have decided through a ballot that presents binary choices or that asks perhaps the wrong questions?

There is understandable concern among those who do not want rail to go forward. Concerns about cost, about possible conflicts of interest, about issues of accountability, about who rail will serve. These are issues a thoughtful leader addresses by putting in place an absolutely transparent system of accountability that the public — yes, all voters — can have ready access to.

Mere declarations through op-eds that there are no conflicts of interest or that the people involved are people of integrity do nothing to allay public anxiety. Neither do ads by parties with a vested interest in the project and who stand to profit from it. People abhor being patronized or being asked to take declarations about issues of this magnitude at face value.

But people also are willing to believe a persuasive leader who says: "I hear you and here's how we are going to manage cost and ensure accountability on this project — even if I may have moved on to the next public office." That's information people can digest and believe — or not. Asking the average voter to decide if Honolulu should get rail or not is asking them to digest an avalanche of information about options, cost, impact, long-term traffic and population growth patterns and more on the basis of headlines, sound bites and ads. My guess is, despite the extensive coverage of angry people on both sides of the issue, the average voter does not have anything close to a command of the facts on rail or mass transit or the long-term traffic burdens of O'ahu or the likelihood of this moment of opportunity in terms of funding coming our way again. Most voters will decide on whether to go forward with rail or not on the basis of how they feel, not on the basis of how much they know.

No one who has been stuck in ever-worsening traffic jams can be in any doubt that improvements in mass transit are needed. Right now, everything is in place to move forward with rail. Is it the perfect solution? No. But it is one solution. Voters should let leaders do what we elected them to do — and then hold their feet to the fire.

Dawn Morais Webster is president and chief executive officer of Loomis-ISC, an integrated marketing communications firm. She wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.