SO IS this election thrilling you, boring you half to death or passing you by? This contest more than most seems to have generated an amazing amount of heat and noise as it struts and frets across on the political stage.

For all of the coverage, all of the debates, for all of the tattered flags waving in the wind, most people probably made up their minds ages ago. Some will have picked the party they always choose; some will flirt with novelty this time round. Some will have decided not to vote; some not even to register to vote, which is a hidden scandal in itself.

Around a third of those who intend to vote say they will pick either Labour or Conservative, leaving the remaining third to be divided between the other parties.

The intensity of the coverage is a thrill to political junkies who swallow every mouthful. Yet does the average voter, if such a presumption can be made, share their tastes?

Both of our main parties have American guns for hire in this election, which suggests they spent too much time watching the US political drama The West Wing. For Labour, this role falls to the political guru David Axelrod, a former campaign strategist to Barack Obama, while the Tories have put their dollar on Jim Messina, who also helped to mastermind Obama’s win.

An interesting quote was attributed to Axelrod in The Guardian last weekend. It went like this: “Most voters do not pay attention to the detail of politics in the way that the media and insiders to, instead getting broad impressions and focusing when they have to.”

There is sense in what he says. All the endless coverage can become little more than background static, the fuzz and whir of something you can’t quite tune out.

The TV debates add to the noise, but they do provide good entertainment for those who like a political punch-up. This time round the contests mostly seem to have been of benefit to Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP (who isn’t even standing for election) and Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood (who is only of direct relevance if you live in Wales).

After the seven-way spat, we then had the five-headed debate in which Prime Minister David Cameron declined to take part.

The honours for that mind-the-gap tussle are generally said to have gone to Labour leader Ed Miliband, although opinions differ.

If these debates are to become a regular feature, then they should be arranged by an independent body which mediates between the parties and the broadcasters.

That way there would be none of the squabbling.

As for the national newspapers, you only look at most of them if you wish to have your prejudices confirmed, or if you feel the need to raise your blood pressure.

Most of the usual suspects say the usual suspect things.

The Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun and The Times all belittle Labour as often as possible, which is what always happens.

As for the Daily Express, that tilts even more to the right, as suggested by owner Richard Desmond’s reported gift of £1 million to Ukip (that should buy a lot of purple badges).

The Daily Mirror steadfastly sticks by Labour, while The Guardian and The Independent offer advice broadly from the left.

It’s easy to wonder why the papers even bother, as they are mostly ranting to the converted. Also, in this social media age, the national newspapers have less election heft than in the past.

The only certainty is that either David Cameron or Ed Miliband will become Prime Minister, although the likelihood of a single-party victory is slim.

David and Ed will, you can be sure, go puce in the face between now and May 7 pretending that they can win on their own, while all the signs are that Britons are losing their taste for single-party rule.

And if you hate the whole quarrelsome business, you can come out of that cupboard in two weeks.