Who Should You Vote For?

How do you determine who to vote for? Some people wouldn't dare to tell you who to vote for, but if you're reading this, I'm assuming that you are looking for a set of criteria to determine which candidate to pick. This set of criteria works for any elected office, in federal, state or local politics. I am arguing that these criteria are in the best interest of any person from any political position.

Here are the two criteria, you want someone who:

1. Will abide by and enforce the Laws
   and
2. Will represent the people

You see, we live in a nation of laws, and a nation of, by, and for the people.

The Law

Any candidate, for any office, must be someone who agrees to abide by and enforce the laws. At the federal level, this would be the US Constitution. At the state level, it would be the state's constitution, and at the local level, it would be the local laws. "What if the laws are unjust?" you may ask. Well, there is a system to change that, and we will get to this in the next point, but you want to work within the system.

If you have a candidate who is willing to break some rules to push an agenda, then you have a deal-breaker. You may even agree with their agenda, but think of it this way: you wouldn't want someone to break the rules to push an agenda that you disagree with. Remember, it goes both ways. What goes around comes around.

The Constitution prevents government officials from infringing on your rights. Among such rights are life, liberty, property, free speech, free religious exercise (meaning the ability to believe what you want and do what you want, without infringing on the aforementioned rights of others). These rights are basic, because they don't cost anything to recognize.

Bottom line: you want a candidate who will agree to be bound to the Constitutional restrictions. It is in everyone's best interest to elect a candidate who will not be his or her own arbiter of what rules to follow.

The Representative

We do not live in a pure democracy. Instead, we live in a Constitutional-Republic, where leaders rule by consent of the governed. In a pure democracy, there is simply a majority rule. Majority rule sounds nice, but then it sucks when you happen to be in a minority. Ideally, we want our leaders to represent all of their constituents, not just those in their party.

Our leaders need to represent both the majority and the minority. If they only represent the majority which voted them in, we will have a country which neglects (or worse) oppresses those in minority groups. Our representatives should promote greater liberty, while at the same time protecting all citizens from having their rights infringed.

You can also vote for a candidate who will work within the system (not infringing on the rights of others) to bring about a change that is necessary in our society. The best example of this would be Lincoln, who represented the abolitionist movement. The newly formed Republican party believed that slavery went against the philosophy of America, and were taking political action to end it.

Lincoln is the best example of this, because he made the change within the Constitutional perimeters.

*****

So there you have it. Two simple criteria. They must follow the Constitution, acting within it's perimeters; and they must represent all their constituents, not infringing on the Constitutional rights of any to push an agenda.

So, tell me what you think. Tweet at me @frank_perseo or comment on the Frank Talks Facebook page. Do you agree or disagree with these criteria? What would be your criteria for picking candidates? And based on this, who do you think that I support?