I hold this truth to be self-evident: For most Americans who do vote, each has a set of litmus-test issues that preselect the candidates from which s/he will choose.
For me, the litmus test is equality. That whole “all [beings] are created equal” schtick is my dividing line. I don’t care what your religion, age, skin color, sex, sexual preference, gender identity, ethnic background, or place of origin is. If you are over the age of consent, you have the right to equal opportunity, equal pay, equal treatment before the law, and equal access. And you deserve the right to and should shoulder the responsibility of voting for the people who will, through the legislative process, either expand or limit those rights.
(For the record, I would also include domestic pets and livestock over a certain age among those who have rights, because they, too, are dependent in some part upon the laws our society creates, but they lack the ability to cast a vote.)
Having this litmus test does not mean I am closed to some political parties, but it does mean that, in any given election, I will automatically discount (sometimes severely) the viability of any candidate who does not profess utter neutrality, at the least, and open acceptance, at the best, of this principle. Rights are granted to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority or ruling faction. If you believe that “might makes right,” then I want you off my ballot. I’d prefer you to be escorted out of my country, but I’ll settle for off my ballot.
The litmus test does not mean that I think that reproductive rights, affirmative action, or gay marriage are the most important issues to deal with, especially at a federal level. It does mean that I can not trust a candidate to leave our basic rights untouched while s/he is putting our economy back together or figuring out the best strategy to get our asses out of intense Middle East involvement. In fact, I feel there is a real danger of losing basic rights in the current political climate, because the aggregate needs of the country are focused on immediate concerns (disaster relief, job creation, taxes, Afghanistan) and too many people are willing to bargain away what they do not value right now (freedom to change and pursue long-term goals in the future through collective political will and persuasion) for relief from short-term hardship.
Rights matter, because we do not yet live in a Utopia when/where most people do feel that all of us are created equal. Most people would prefer to scapegoat than ensure equality. Worse, many people are convinced that, because we have equality written into our Constitution, we don’t have to expand, ensure, and protect our right to it.
(I may be guilty of flogging this point. C’est ma vie!)
Once a candidate establishes adherence to this basic principle, I then feel free to consider all of their other aspects: Policies, ideals, track record, background, experience, character, amiability, competency, etc.
The second test I run the remaining candidates through is an integrity check. Sometimes all candidates on the ballot fail this, and it becomes a matter of sifting through to find the least bruised apple in the bushel.
The third test I run any remaining candidates through is a stupidity check. I do not want a stupid person in office, because he will not think critically about the counsel s/he is given from hi/r party, advisers, family connections, major donors, and other People To Whom S/He Owes Hi/r Election. Everyone who runs for office will owe someone down the line–I take that for granted. Therefore, I also take a certain amount of nepotism for granted. But I am voting for an individual official, not an industry or demographic mouthpiece. That’s a public trust, and I expect whomever wins the office to be aware of it and take that trust seriously enough to curb hi/r cotillion of D.C. wannabe debutantes when it is in the best interest of the public to do so.
By the time I’ve finished running all the candidates through my Three-Prong Validity Exam, I’ve usually cut my options down to two to four people. And with those two to four people, I can then apply my own calculations and priorities based on what I think the country needs, how I believe certain issues should be handled, and whether there’s anything in their platforms that looks fair and balanced within my calculus.
The saddest part of the process is that the primaries and the two-party system usually knock my real options down to one long before I get to put my political calculus into play.
morementum 