Which Candidate Did You Vote For; 'Better' Or 'Qualified'?

Details: Category: Politics; Published: Sunday, 09 November 2014 01:30; Written by Paula Denise

VOTE Sign by Paula Denise
Before I share the following dialog, I congratulate Victoria Siplin on her victory and wish her well.
Every election season and certainly on election day, I pay particular attention to buzz waves of discussion about candidates while waiting in line. The most common buzz words used is 'the better candidate.'

Strangely, as frequent as that description is used, NO ONE has ever expounded upon how that blanket of a description with hidden meanings makes a person the comparative better candidate. In summary, more voter education and dialog is needed to help clarify meanings before they cast their votes.

Here is one conversation that gathered a modicum of attention at the Smith Center poll. The following conversation indicates one of many differing opinions as well as the need to educate voters.

Hope you enjoy...I did making me forget the progressive pace of being in line. I'm going to call this "BETTER VS QUALIFIED" debate.

Male#1: So. I see you voted.

Male#2: I did too. I voted for Wallace.

Male#1: WHY? I voted for Siplin.

Male#2: Why? Because I believe Wallace to be the more qualified for the job.

Male#1: Shhhhh,but Siplin is the better candidate.

Male#2: How do you figure that? In your opinion, what makes her the better candidate when she has no office holding or political experience except the seat she occupied in her husband's law office doing clerical work. However I do understand she has some type of small family business but that doesn't make her qualified for a commissioner
.
Male#1: I'm not worried because she's married to a man with all that or had all that. He'll help her. She's the better candidate

Male#2: Precisely, you didn't vote for her, you voted for her husband! That's what you're saying and that doesn't say she's the better candidate. How is she the better choice compared to Wallace?

Male#1: Mannn, I wouldn't vote for Wallace if he was the last man on earth !

Male#2: (Laugh) But why? "Better" doesn't explain your point or decision. To me 'better' means most experienced especially with large budgets, the language of contracts, negotiations, notable community support beyond food and supply give-aways, man. To you 'better' means what? You still haven't said.

Male#1: Hey, I just think she's a better choice and I backed her.

Male#2: OK but did you vote or the Lynums? It sounds like more an emotional, personal choice than one based on real credentials or qualifications. So you say she's better but you don't say how she's a better choice.

Male#1: Hell no I didn't vote for them, mom or son!

Male#2: Well you know that's who the Siplins endorsed? That speaks volumes to me.

Male#1: I forgot that, that's messed up.

Male#2: I know, a lot of folks forgot, must be something in their food giveaways (laugh)

Male#1: Well, too late now. I voted for Wallace, the most experienced and most qualified; YOU voted on something different called 'better'. Maybe everybody ought to start discussing the difference between 'better' and what that means, you know, define it then compare it to 'qualified' and then the use of 'better' might intersect to produce the true meaning.

Male#2: Huh, well, I agree that we disagree, I voted for the better and you voted for what?? Oh yeah, the qualified. We'll see if Better beats Qualified for the win.

Male#1: OK, I can agree to disagree, it's cool , I was just interested in how different people choose candidates. Thanks man, gotta run.

I was just sharing and thought this was funny but serious topic for voter education. Emotions have no place in voting for qualifications as to who would do a better job. People don't make emotional choices when it comes to expensive repairs or other human services. They research, get references and feedback first. But why do they do so in elections?