How Should We Judge Who We Vote For?

How should we make judgements?

Do we have the correct values to make decisions?

Are we using the wrong streams of information when we make judgements about politicians? Do we vote for a candidate for the wrong reasons?

To me all that matters about a musician, or a composer, is the music. All that matters with a footballer (soccer player) is the skill and athleticism that they show when in a game—it is football that matters, nothing to do with the latest hair cut or the celebrity the media claim they are dating. Surely with a politician it is the politics and what they truly believe in, politically, that is what matters. Who slept with who 30 years ago is totally irrelevant. It does seem distressing that the ability of a popular singer can be judged by their appearance. Many of the past vocal stars, who have been successful with the public for many years, would never get through a TV talent show, since they have never fitted the formulae for how a pop star should look. Would any sensible person judge the merit of a painting based on the appearance of the artist? Yet it does appear that we all make judgements based on what we first see, rather than waiting for verifiable factual information about the actual abilities of the person. What any of us perceive as attractive is an interesting study. Certainly we all have differing views of what makes someone else attractive, and our views often change with age and experience; or do they change with our own changing appearance, as we age? In a multi billion world population, there will always be exceptions to a normality, but most people will have a different idea of what they find attractive at 66 than they did at 16.

Famous people often have biographical books written about them. Some have had autobiographical books published. A very few may have actually written a personal autobiography. Should any of these works be used as a basis for judgement? The writer, especially when writing about themselves, has a bias, a preset notion of what they wish to portray. This gets very apparent when looking at political biographies, since the political inclinations of the writer usually become apparent in their portrayal of the person they are writing about. A devoted adherent to free market economics is unlikely to glorify the abilities of a devout communist, just as a sincere socialist is never going to praise the economic achievements of a free market advocate. This is more immediate in media presentations of living politicians. Just as quantum physics shows the the observer influences an experimental action, the presenter of a view colours that view with their own preset beliefs. There is a whole section of the media devoted to sensational stories about the private lives of actors, yet what really matters is the portrayal they provide when performing. What other meaningful measure is there for an actors talent? What else decides whether an actor is worth paying money to go and watch?

What people do, or have done in the past, is more important than what they say they will do. Political promises are worthless, completely worthless—they are spouted, twisted and spun to suit the audience of that time. They have no meaning, but they do have a purpose, which is to get some of the listeners to believe the speaker really does mean to do what they say. When dealing with a political figure who has held office before, it is what they did during that period of power that matters. What they claim they will do in the future has to be discounted, because if they truly intended to take the proposed action they could have done this when in power. Some will say things have changed; certainly all will have some excuse. A person with no excuses ready at hand,\ is not a true politician.

So what do we do? How can we choose the best stream of information? What can we use as a standard for comparison? Is the private life of the political figure relative and important when considering the ability they have to govern wisely? Certainly a person who fraudulently claims money from the state does not appear to be a good person to put in charge of the nations economy; but is a competent politician to be thrown out of office because they had a “romantic” liaison with a person they are not married to? Does the complexity of their private interpersonal relationships indicate they are not a sound economist? If they are indulging in illegal activities that would be a sound reason to distrust them with governance, but if their personal life is legal why should it impinge on the ability to make sound decisions?

If choosing a politician, we should not consider personal appearance to be of the most importance, nor should we base our opinions on the new promises they are making. Look at their experience and their track record. Try to find how genuine their political views are. This is never easy. Look at how closely their past record compares to your own view of how things should be. Try to find how consistent they have been. In the early stages of a political career, people tend to show less caution and to have less interest in having a wide public appeal. Many ardent socialists, who fervently seek public ownership of all things and also believe they they personally should be a leader of a permanent one party state, do not publicly express these views once they start seeking public votes, but they may have done so when starting out as a political activist.