There’s a small number of people who highly value my opinion about politics and elections. This article is for those who appreciate the way that I think about politics regardless of where my votes fall.
My Priorities & Principled Approach to Voting
Policies vs Systems Fixes
A good constitution will define the types of laws could be passed legally by a government. It outlines the scope of what responsibilities should or should not be given to a government. Most political conversations revolve around policies, such as the laws passed by legislatures or rules enforced by executive agencies. However, I find conversations about “systems fixes” much more interesting.
“Systems” refers to the bigger picture of how governments operate; separation of powers, checks and balances, constitutions and amendments, incentive structures, elections, and other factors that influence the ways political officials are selected and the ways policies are developed, passed, interpreted, and enforced. Most legislation does not address systematic problems. Some legislation does attempt to improve our systems, but because laws are easier to replace than constitutional provisions, policy solutions are usually temporary.
If you hear me talking about fixing “root causes,” I’m often talking about constitutional reform.
Tableau provides a great description of root cause analysis:
Root cause analysis (RCA) is the process of discovering the root causes of problems in order to identify appropriate solutions. RCA assumes that it is much more effective to systematically prevent and solve for underlying issues rather than just treating ad hoc symptoms and putting out fires…. [Core Principles include:]
- Focus on correcting and remedying root causes rather than just symptoms.
- Don’t ignore the importance of treating symptoms for short term relief.
- Realize there can be, and often are, multiple root causes.
- Focus on HOW and WHY something happened, not WHO was responsible.
- Be methodical and find concrete cause-effect evidence to back up root cause claims.
- Provide enough information to inform a corrective course of action.
- Consider how a root cause can be prevented (or replicated) in the future.
https://www.tableau.com/analytics/what-is-root-cause-analysis
Good systems limit how much damage terrible politicians can inflict.
Sandbagging vs Diversion Analogy
Imagine a city built along the edge of a massive river. When an unexpected and relentless storm hits, the water levels rise quickly, and there’s an immediate threat of catastrophic flooding. Most people grab sandbags, tirelessly working to create barriers around their homes and businesses to hold back the rushing water. They’re focused on immediate survival, protecting what’s closest to them. Meanwhile, a smaller group of people stands farther upstream, working to redirect part of the river, trying to control the flow and prevent more water from reaching the city in the first place. They’re thinking beyond immediate relief, looking at ways to manage the river over the long term.
This analogy reflects the two essential approaches to any large problem. On one side, we have the “sandbaggers” – those who respond directly to urgent issues, addressing symptoms to provide immediate relief. On the other, we have the “river diversions” – people who focus on root causes, trying to lessen the impact of future storms altogether. Both approaches are vital: while sandbags keep the city safe for now, without the upstream work, future floods are inevitable.
For lasting change, we need both: the hands-on, reactive efforts and the strategic, proactive interventions that address the source of the problem.
Idealism vs Pragmatism
As someone who focuses on the big picture and long-term perspective, I certainly lean more towards idealism. I’m generally much more interested in having conversations about systems fixes and root cause analysis than about policies that toggle back and forth every election cycle. Unfortunately, this idealistic mentality prevents me from being satisfied with candidates, parties, and measures that focus on swinging at the branches with new policies while ignoring root causes.
Many are convinced root causes will never be fixed and pass judgment on those who cast idealistic votes. They believe every vote should be strategic and pragmatic. I don’t share this sentiment.
I currently don’t have a formula to determine when to cast a strategic, pragmatic vote versus when to cast an idealistic vote. Perhaps my rule of thumb is that I’ll only cast votes that I’m proud of. For example, if I can’t bring myself to vote for someone of questionable ethics in my own party, I will refuse to vote for them, even if I like most of their policies. This principle is a work in progress, but that’s where I currently stand. I don’t judge others who use a sandbagging approach to voting and base their decisions on policy positions. We just play different roles in the political process and that’s ok.
Undervoting
I no longer cast uninformed votes. Casting a uninformed vote is neither noble or responsible. Many citizens seem to feel proud of the fact they even voted without realizing (or caring) that their uninformed votes, often based purely on name recognition or feeble research, have protected the status quo and lousy politicians from needed change.
If I haven’t done the work to know whether a candidate or measure sufficiently aligns with my principles, I will undervote by withholding a vote for that office or measure. This is not the same as voting for “the opposition.” It is a conscious decision to not inadvertently contribute to the problem by being a useful idiot.
To undervote, simply do not fill in a bubble for that option.
To me, undervoting because I’m uninformed feels irresponsible. But casting an uninformed vote feels even more irresponsible. If I’m undervoting because I simply cannot cast a vote in favor of the available options, then I can undervote with pride and confidence and an intention to do what I can to bring better options to future ballots.
Democratic Republicanism
The United States is routinely called a “Democracy,” a “Democratic Republic,” and a “Republic.” It would be worth having a conversation about what America should be, but for now I’ll simply define these terms.
- Democracy: Laws are voted on and passed by the people directly
- Ballot Measures (or Propositions) are policies that we vote for directly, constituting a direct democracy.
- Republic: Laws are voted on and passed by representatives
- This simply describes who votes on bills without describing how the representatives were selected.
- Democratic Republic: Lawmaking representatives are elected directly by the people
- When we vote for representatives, the democracy is electing representatives and transferring lawmaking authority, transforming the state into a republic.
America currently functions as a strange, dysfunctional hybrid of all three systems.
What do you think is the most important thing to look for when deciding who to vote for?
As a preface, I’ve run for state office and I’ve aided campaigns ranging from town council to US Senate. I know how political campaign marketing works.
I’m convinced that politicians who are trying to “do the right thing” campaign on policy positions but ultimately vote according to their political philosophy. Unfortunately, voters don’t like taking the time to determine a candidate’s political philosophy, so campaign marketing uses slogans and labels to generalize how a candidate feels about the issues to quickly align with voters. That’s why people are confused when the “good” people they elected cast strange votes or when politicians seem to flip on issues.
I’m looking for candidates who align with this general philosophy:
- God endowed man with unalienable rights. Categories of these rights include the rights to life, liberty, and property. When government creates law, the only ways they can enforce the law are by restricting a person’s life, liberty, and/or property.
- Power corrupts, so political power should be reasonably decentralized and distributed through a system of separation of powers and checks and balances.
- The rule of law should be honored as sacred.
- Problems should be solved as close to the people as possible because those closest to the problem are often the best at solving it.
My Research & Voting Process
Ballotopedia
Starting with local issues
Step 1: Obtain a Ballot (or Sample Ballot)
Step 2: Explore Voter Guides
Find a voter guide/online resource that lists all ballot options
Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to have the office of county sheriff be elected by voters?
Recent Comments