Hey Y'all,
Part 2, with some comparison questions:
You have two people running for an elected position (Let's say its the run-off and thus the only two voting). One of them clearly seems to be very competent, experienced and professional, but has political positions that are opposed to yours on most major issues. The other one has ideas and positions very much like your own, but they have some clear competency issues. Which are you more likely to vote for if:
1. It is an administrative/executive position, like President, Governor, Sheriff, Mayor, etc.
2. It is a legislative positions, like Senator, State Representative, School Board Member.
3. In Louisiana, we vote for Judge's. What if it were a position for a district or appellate judge.
Also, would whether it was a local, state or national office make a difference?
Thanks,
A.T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For me, it would depend upon the depth of the competency issues. In regards to an administrative/executive candidate: If the candidate has a record of folding under the pressure, or really has no way to prove competency because of no experience, I would have to say that I would go for the person who's views were unlike my own, but clearly would do a good job. Now, if we're talking about a more legislative position, where laws are actually being formed, I would have to give my sopport to the person whose views are similar to my own, and hope they don't screw things up!
Charlie,
Yeah, I think that is where I am as well. Of course, I tend not be "in-line" with the thinking of any mainstream candidates, so I'm always choosing the lesser of 2 bad choices.
A.T.
Post a Comment