Voting according to characteristics that matter

   This year we are privileged (sarcasm) with presumably one of the craziest elections in history.  We have the choice between a corrupt criminal in Hillary Clinton, a narcissistic chauvinist in Donald Trump, two candidates who are incompetent in the way government works in Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and a credential-less, yet smart, moral man in Evan McMullin.  If you read or watch anything political online or in the news it's likely you've seen hundreds of comparisons between candidates, as well as random opinions regarding different candidates.  When choosing who to vote for, however, we have to be able to sift out the useless information thrown at us and decide what is valuable.  In short, we should focus on policy more than personality, yet often we start debating what we view as pros or cons in a candidate's personality.  This should be left out of the discussion.  To start, let's examine the useless information that is thrown at us that we need to disregard.

   Let's get what I consider to be the most illogical argument out of the way: "vote for a winner."  I am absolutely tired of seeing all the polls.  With polls from more liberal networks such as MSNBC and CNN we always see Hillary ahead, in more neutral or conservative networks such as Fox, we see Trump ahead.  Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have put out articles or ads that show their poll numbers that "clearly" show them ahead of their opponent and tell you that you should vote for the expected winner of the election.  Unless you are placing bets it shouldn't matter to you whom the projected winner is.  If we had someone as corrupt and as evil as Hitler running, and somehow he was leading in the polls (sound like any candidate?), would you vote for him? No!  Because I am going to assume that you aren't evil, you don't enjoy murder, and you want what's best for your country.

  

   While vetting Gary Johnson I came across a few people's opinions on his character.  When debating with people against marijuana, the point was brought up that you are much more likely to have a heart attack after smoking marijuana than you would otherwise.  Immediately Gary Johnson grabs his chest and falls to the ground while faking a heart attack.  Someone in the comments of the video said something to the effect of "Gary Johnson just won my vote; I want someone with a sense of humor in the White House." Twitter followers also threw in their similar remarks:

I personally think Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were hilarious Presidents, but this (clearly) in no way helped their ability as a President nor did it affect their policies. Both reflected similar or less effective policies of other Democratic Presidents.  Neither gained more support from Americans AFTER they went in office, and neither were good Presidents for helping the economy, international relations, national security, or really anything.

   Another weightless argument is a candidate's identity, i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  Sure, we want to see a variety of people being President, but the only reason why I would consider voting for someone who is black, as opposed to white is if his/her policies are policies that I can agree with MORE than the other candidate. Same thing goes for the opposite situation, as well as any other difference in identity among candidates. If the only candidates available were one male and one female, I would only vote for the female for the purpose of variety if and only if the two candidates’ policies were exactly the same. If I agree with the male candidate's policies more, I will vote for him. If I agree with the female candidate's policies more, I'll vote for her.  This should be obvious but Obama's campaign was trying to get voters based off of Obama being black, and Hillary's campaign is trying to get voters based on her being a female. The quality and policies of a candidate should always trump the identity of a candidate.

   Let's dive into the part of the discussion that should be obvious: the valuable characteristics.  Policy is an obvious one and should be the one we view as most important.  On top of policy, however, are other characteristics that will have a large effect on a candidate's presidency.  Temperament is one that is brought up often, especially when we talk about the President being the Commander-in-Chief.  We don't want someone crazy, or someone with a short fuse to be behind the nuclear missile launch button.  However, if the President says "FIRE!" there is nothing that says that the missiles will undoubtedly be launched.  There is a period of time of discussion with the military general and others before a final decision is made.  The president does not, has not, and will not ever, hold the sole power over nuclear launch protocol. Thus, policy is still weighted more than temperament.

   We also don't want someone who is incompetent behind the button for obvious reasons.  Even if they have a good temperament, their stupidity or lack of logic can also lead to rash, stupid, or knee-jerk decisions.  Just think of Homer the nuclear physicist.

Homer behind the button

   One characteristic that is overlooked is health.  While Bernie Sanders was running, many were concerned about his health due to his age.  He, however, was very healthy and had doctor's notes to prove it.  The reason why this is important is because the person we choose as President (assuming they are actually going to work and not just play golf or vacation while in office) has to be able to keep up with the demand of job.  Traveling, going to meetings, dealing with middle-of-the-night situations; these things can wear a person down.  If they can't handle it and they get some type of ailment, then there is a period of time in which they become unable to work which can hurt our country if it comes during a dire time.  Hillary is clearly not healthy, Trump seems to be healthy but he is a bit older than a lot of candidates of previous years, and Gary Johnson will probably have a heart attack due to his large consumption of marijuana (semi-sarcasm).

   Last of all, diplomacy and honesty.  We want a President who is a good public figure and will do in private what they say they will do in public (if it's a good thing of course).  On top of this, we want someone who can have good foreign relations and make the US look good.  Dishonesty speaks volumes about one's character and can show how unstable or how untrustworthy a candidate may be.  We need to dive deep into their history to see how honest they have been in the past, both the recent past and who they were 10+ years ago.

  This is not the finite list of things to focus on and the things to disregard but I hope it gives you a good base for how you should prioritize characteristics when considering a candidate.  The policies and history of each candidate should be of the most importance which is what makes this election so difficult.  No candidate has a good, or a clear past, and each candidates' policies are hard to believe because of their pasts.  When pitted with this predicament many people resort to looking at the pointless characteristics.  Instead, if all characteristics that do matter fail, or are too unclear to aide your decision making process, then consider their morals.  This isn't the first category to test a candidate, but it may be the last.