The Conscientious Voter (Part 1: Introduction)

As we head toward another significant U.S. election this coming November, I have been pondering how I should vote.   What criteria should I use in selecting whom to support?  Are there considerations that a Christ-follower like me should make paramount?  Are there particular views, policies, or traits that should unconditionally disqualify a candidate?  Should I just go with my gut?  Will emotional responses to likability or physical attractiveness, as shallow as those qualities may be,  overwhelm my more rational side?  

I live in a democratic republic.  That means I rarely get to have a direct say in the major decisions of our government.   I don’t vote on the state budget.  I can do little to change laws.  I can’t determine when potholes are filled or whether to send more troops to the Middle East.  My primary constitutional power is to elect the decision makers.  Who I vote for to represent my interests in solving future societal issues and problems thus becomes my essential contribution to governance at the local, state, and federal level.

Given that voting for elected representatives and officials is my main political job in this democracy, it would seem I should make some effort to do it well.  But how should I go about it?

It’s a Hiring Decision

Over my decades in administrative and executive roles, one of my most important activities was to hire good staff.  If I made a great hire, the organization would benefit greatly and my life would be much easier.  But if I hired poorly and made a mistake, there were often long-term consequences.  

The decision of whom to vote for is essentially a hiring decision. 

At times when I have sought a new employee, the slate of candidates was such that any one of them would have done a good job.  In such cases, the decision was relatively easy.  It probably didn’t matter much which person was chosen.  But it took some time for me to sort out all the factors that needed to be considered before I could make the determination that individuals were equally qualified.

Describe the Job

When a manager decides to hire someone for a particular job, they are choosing the individual best suited to be responsible for particular aspects of the organization.  The hire is made so that the manager does not have to do all the work.  Rather, a substantial amount of work can be delegated to the new hire.  So the first order of business, even before posting the job announcement is to define the job description.  What all will the person in the post be required to do or be responsible for?

Define the Ideal Candidate

Once the job is defined, the normal next step is to think through all the qualities that will be required in the successful employee in order for the job to be done well.  These characteristics might be broken down into such categories as

• Knowledge

• Skills

• Values

• Character

• Leadership

• Habits of mind

• Physical aptitude (if relevant)

And, of course, there were always past assets and liabilities that needed to be thought about depending on the position.  If someone was going to be handling money, I might not want to hire someone who was deeply in debt and thereby tempted.  Nor would I generally lean toward a candidate with a past record of theft.  On the flip side, if I were hiring someone to attract others and gain recognition for the organization, I might value someone with a strong reputation in the community.

Weight the Criteria

Obviously, various jobs required different characteristics.  And not every quality was equally important  to every job.  A line worker in the cafeteria probably wouldn’t require a deep level of knowledge.  However, a senior scientist would not only need a doctorate but might also need a strong record of research and publication to demonstrate expertise equal to the task.  For this reason, it is generally important to identify both the characteristics of the ideal candidate and how important each quality is.

Identify the Evidence

Finally, it was often helpful to me to indicate what kinds of evidence might serve to indicate that the candidate has each trait.  Some of the evidence might be non-negotiable.  For example, if I were hiring a lawyer, it would be essential that she or he was a member of the appropriate bar and was authorized to practice law within the appropriate jurisdiction.  That qualification would not only indicate a level of knowledge, but it would make it possible for the lawyer to do the job assigned.

If we were to approach voting with this four step process, we might make good progress thinking through who we might be willing to vote for.

1. Define the job

2. Define the qualities of the ideal candidate

3. Decide which qualities are more important than others

4. Decide what evidence would indicate possession of each quality

Of course, #1 will be different for each elected official.  But there will be significant overlap no matter what the elected office relative to numbers 2, 3, and 4.  Perhaps legislators won’t require the management experience and skill that an executive like a mayor or governor would, but there will be many qualities that seem relevant to every elected position.  Over the next several posts I’d like to explore what these qualities might be and how I might make decisions in the voting booth.  As you have ideas that I haven’t thought of, please add your comments.