Not really jazzed up about Dan Coats but unclear on the concept of Brad Ellsworth? Feeling sort of coin-flippish about the congressional race? Couldn’t describe how the Republican and Democratic candidates differ on policy even if you stood to win groceries for a year?

You’re not alone. Although the political barometer is definitely pointing toward Republican victories, some voters aren’t passionate about any of the candidates. They want to do their civic duty, but they have various reasons why none of the Senate and House candidates rock their boat.

There’s room for you at the ballot box. Without buying into either party’s candidate, you can vote to “send a message,” or you can vote to keep or change the party that controls Congress.

For instance, your message vote might be that you’re sick of President Obama and the policies of the Democratic-controlled Congress. You might even believe that the economic mess we’re in was largely created by actions and inactions of the George W. Bush administration but also think Obama and his party have had two years to reverse course. To send that message, you’ll vote for Republicans Coats and House candidate Marlin Stutzman.

You could come down on the side of bipartisan power-sharing. Even Democratic-leaning independents might think that it’s not the best thing for democracy when one party controls the White House, the Senate and the House.

Voting for Stutzman doesn’t change the status quo in northeast Indiana, but a Coats victory would move Indiana’s junior senator from the D column to the R.

Your message might be more targeted.

For instance, if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is your idea of a demon, a vote for Stutzman is a way to help ensure she’s not the Democratic House leader and No. 3 in the line of presidential succession. You don’t have to have confidence in Stutzman as a lawmaker to make a decision based on an anti-Pelosi feeling; there is no chance Stutzman would cast his first vote of 2011 for anyone other than a Republican speaker candidate.

On the other hand, you might think having a woman in the top echelon of U.S. power is a good thing, even if you are not ready to pull on a cheerleading outfit for the actions of the Democratic Congress. In that case, a vote for Democrat Tom Hayhurst serves your broader goal.

You might think that northeast Indiana has not been well served by 15 1/2 years of Republican representation, so a Democrat might be worth a try. Or you might consider that a candidate who promises not to make a retirement-age career out of Congress is a better bet than one who makes no bones about the fact that he thinks 18 years is a fine length of time to serve in the House.

Hayhurst, at 68, is not likely to run for too many more terms if he’s elected, while Stutzman, at 34, says term limits of 18 years would be suitable. But plenty of Democrats as well as Republicans are uncommitted to voluntary term limits, let alone mandatory ones. Careerism in Congress is a bipartisan issue, or course, but 3rd District voters motivated by the issue of limited terms would choose the Democrat this time.

In the Senate race, you might think that Coats has had his shot in Washington. Nothing against him personally, you’d say, but he already had a career in Congress, parlayed that to a lucrative lobbying career and was on the verge of retirement in North Carolina when he was lured back to Indiana to ask for another six years in the Senate.

Or you might think Indiana’s lucky to have a chance to benefit from the experience Coats has under his belt, the contacts he has with other senators who remained in office while he went off to lobbying and diplomatic careers.

These votes are based on strategy rather than assessments about the candidates’ positions on public policy issues. In other words, it’s not a pro-Hayhurst vote or an anti-Stutzman vote, not a pro-Coats or anti-Ellsworth vote.

It’s a statement about the status quo, careerism and your unhappiness or satisfaction with what it’s brought us.

You have another choice as well: Vote Libertarian. However, there is no question that this is a throw-away vote.

The Libertarian candidates in the northeast Indiana congressional race and in the Senate race will not win, period. Neither has any of the recognizable attributes of a contender with a wisp of a chance of winning. People who support candidates send them campaign donations. Neither Senate candidate Rebecca Sink-Burris nor congressional candidate Scott Wise has received enough cash to require campaign reports to the Federal Election Commission. Neither bends the needle much in polls.

But if you find yourself in the fed-up-with-everything category, a vote for the Libertarian candidate might make you feel better. When your frustration level with the federal government doesn’t improve in the next two years, you won’t have the disappointment of having voted for a winner who didn’t come through.