Choosing a Candidate

  Video Links: [TikTok] [YouTube]

[11-Sep-2024]

With a little less than two months left until Election Day 2024, I've started looking at some of the criteria that voters typically use to choose the person that they are voting for. Unfortunately for me, down-ballot races are like the side dishes at a Thanksgiving dinner; everyone’s focused on the turkey (or the presidential race). But if you think about it, it's the stuffing, mashed potatoes, and gravy that make or break the meal.

"Tough times demand tough talk, demand tough hearts, demand tough songs."

Okay, yes, I will admit that I do want to win the election, but as a realist, I'm also pretty certain that even a burning bush or a booming voice from the sky would not have much of an effect on my success. After all, campaign strategies for down-ballot races like mine often involve a blend of clever tactics and sheer perseverance. Being an autistic, I have a personal tendency to classify things into an order that I can understand. It's not always fair or accurate, but it makes things easier for me when I am arguing in my head. Here are some of the ideas that I think most voters consider when choosing a candidate to support.

"We can rise and fall like empires, flow in and out with the tide, be vain and smart, humble and dumb. We can hit-and-miss like pride."

First up is, of course, "party affiliation" which, for some voters, is probably the most significant criteria for a candidate. If a voter only chooses candidates based on party loyalty or alignment with party values, then the party’s platform and past performance can heavily influence this decision. But there may be other factors that influence their decision. For instance, if your whole family votes one way, and you want to avoid awkward Thanksgiving dinners, you might lean that way too. Just make sure you’re not just following the herd without considering whether or not the candidate actually aligns with your personal values.

Next is "electability". Some voters consider whether a candidate has a realistic chance of winning. Electability is like the high school popularity contest. For those of us who campaign under an alternate party ticket, it's pretty clear that most voters think that our main support base is our cat and maybe one or two neighbors (which, come to think of it, is probably not too far off the mark).

If the first two criteria don't get the job done, then there's a tie for third place between "character and integrity" and "policy positions". Trustworthiness, honesty, and ethical behavior are important to some voters. "Character" is determining whether the candidate has a history of being as reliable as a broken watch, only accurate twice a day. "Integrity" means that they won't flip-flop on promises faster than hotcakes on a griddle. If you wouldn't trust them with your Netflix password, you may want to reconsider your choice.

Some voters may look at a candidate's policy positions on issues like healthcare, the economy, education, and the environment to see if the candidate’s policies align with their own beliefs and priorities. But that's usually if they can decipher the candidate's political jargon which, let's face it, is often a cross between a law textbook and an IKEA instruction manual in the original Swedish. Remember, the goal here is to find someone that talks about real issues in a way that doesn't make you want to run for the hills.

"We can move with savage grace to the rhythms of the night, cool and remote like dancing girls in the heat of the beat and the light."

Those four criteria are going to take voters most of the way; the rest of these are just extra toppings for the pizza. Things like "experience and qualifications". Granted that this is probably not as important in down-ballot races like mine, but you probably don't want a candidate who thinks that "filibuster" is a new kind of artisanal coffee, or who regularly tweets about their cat's dietary issues. At a local level, if they've run a lemonade stand and managed to avoid scamming the neighborhood kids, you're probably on the right track.

Next, let's take a quick look at "public perception and media coverage". How the candidate is portrayed in the media can make or break a campaign. Unlike Hollywood where "any press is good press", if the candidate is regularly featured in "Top Ten Scandals", that's probably a red flag. On the other hand, if their media coverage is overwhelmingly positive, that’s either a good sign or a carefully crafted PR stunt. As an alternate party candidate, I don't get press coverage, so it really is a mystery, but then, some people like mysteries, so there's that.

"We can wear the rose of romance [with] an air of joie de vivre, too tender hearts upon our sleeve or skin as thick as thieves."

How a candidate performs in "debates and public appearances" can affect voter perceptions. This includes their ability to communicate effectively and handle pressure. If you can’t wait to see what a candidate says next (or if their blunders are more entertaining than a sitcom), it’s a sign they’re making an impression. But if you’re using their public appearances as a sleep aid, it might be time to look elsewhere.

For me, the final three criteria to round out our "top ten" list are all essentially in a tie for last place and are probably the least significant aspects to voters in a campaign. "Endorsements and support" from influential figures, organizations, or groups can lend credibility and show broader support for the candidate. The effectiveness of a candidate’s "campaign strategy and organization", including their outreach efforts, advertising, and grassroots mobilization, can impact voter impressions, and "personal connections", like personal stories or shared backgrounds, can have an edge if the candidate resonates with the voter on a personal level.

"Look in ... to the eye of the storm. Look out ... for the force without form. Look around ... at the sight and sound. Look in, look out, look around."

Personally, I hope that you do vote for me, but if you choose not to vote for me, I do care that you have put more than a passing thought into your decision of which candidate you do vote for. Every qualified person has the right to vote for whomever they choose regardless of the depth of their consideration on that choice. But what I wholly disagree with is the idea that representation is based on an ill-informed and ill-considered electorate.

Yes, absolutely vote for the candidate of your choice, but pretty please (with sugar on top), vote for something and/or someone that you can personally believe in and not on something ephemeral (lasting a very short time). To do otherwise is to make a mockery of the entire process reducing it to little more than a popularity contest instead of a conscious choice about government representation.