Beyond Partisanship: Evaluating Candidates Regardless of Political Affiliation

Beyond Partisanship: Evaluating Candidates Regardless of Political Affiliation

When it comes to voting for political candidates, many individuals hold firmly to the belief that their choice of party trumps the assessment of individual merits. However, this approach often leads to blind spots, particularly in local roles where candidates have diverse backgrounds and qualifications. This article explores the importance of evaluating candidates beyond their party affiliation, providing insights and examples to support this view.

The Irrationality of Party Loyalty in Local Roles

Party affiliation alone provides no guarantee of a candidate's competence in their role. For instance, electing a sheriff without any law enforcement background is an absurdity. Similarly, appointing an elected judge without educational qualifications is considered a travesty. These positions require specialized knowledge, skills, and experience. Selectmen, town or city officials, and court clerks should be selected based on their qualifications, rather than their party loyalty.

Federal Level Candidates: A Mix of Mediocrity and Stars

However, at the federal level, one might argue that the differences between candidates of the same party are negligible. Most Representatives from a major party tend to have similar resumes—often failed lawyers seeking either a sinecure or a professional boost. This homogeneity can make it difficult to discern between candidates. Nonetheless, standout individuals can be identified, and some candidates for Senators are genuinely the best and brightest our nation has to offer. Occasionally, a candidate for President can also be a real gem.

The Value of Voting for Knowledgeable Individuals

Some individuals argue that it’s more important to cast a vote for candidates than to waste time and effort on the process. While the argument holds some weight, especially for low-level, non-partisan races, it is crucial to consider that the gap between the two major parties' ideologies has widened considerably. In the past, there was a more unified goal between the parties, differing primarily in methods. For example, the 1956 Republican Platform would be unrecognizable to today's Republican Party; a party with a candidate from this platform would be considered highly flawed.

Therefore, even if a candidate from your preferred party is flawed, they are still preferable to the best candidate from the opposing party. This is because the opposing party’s best candidates may hold views that are unacceptable to you. In essence, prioritizing substance and qualifications over party loyalty ensures that you choose the candidate most aligned with your values and who is best equipped to serve their role effectively.

Conclusion

Evaluation of candidates should be based on their qualifications, experience, and alignment with your beliefs, regardless of party affiliation. Blindly voting for a party can lead to electing poorly qualified individuals, often with negative consequences for local governance. By focusing on the individual, you contribute to a more knowledgeable and informed electorate, leading to better governance and more effective representation.