MARK SMITH Advertisement

I'm sure most voters have already made up their minds about the candidates, but there are always the 20 percent who take their time and, one presumes, think about the choices and reasons and issues and so forth.

At least I'd like to think that.

But aside from the issues and the letters to the editor and the ads and commercials and posters and empty phrasings, I think there are some other things that ought to be considered.

Such as....

Does the candidate actually have the time to do the job to which he or she aspires?

This is not an empty question. One local official explained to a reporter that he had not been able to sit down for an interview recently because he had a lot of work to do and didn't have the time.

Well, that raises an important question in response: Should people run for any office if they are not sure they can do the work? Yes, most of the officeholders for whom we vote are unpaid, or paid so little that it makes no difference to their financial well-being.

But when they take the oath to serve, they are assuring hundreds or thousands of people that their interests will be protected, promoted, etc. If they can't fulfill that oath, they have no business accepting the office. For them to say their personal employment comes first is to miss the point. If their employment, in whatever sector, comes before their service to their constituents, then their constituents deserve better officeholders.

How accessible is your candidate? For how many do you have a personal phone number? Is he or she available when you need to get something off your shoulder?

OK, there are limits. No congressman could get anything done if every constituent had a personal home or cell number. But congressmen have offices and staff members and outreach people and all sorts of other assets.

The average, say, school trustee or town board member represents far fewer folks, however, and should darned well be expected to publicize -- and make use of -- an active telephone number and e-mail address so that constituents really can reach out and touch someone.

Really, candidates, if you are too busy to hear directly from the voters who put you into office, then move on and let someone else in who has the time to be available.

Finally, and this is doubtless a hot-button issue for some folks, but perhaps voters should think not only about who to vote for but even whether to vote at all.

Most people I've known address voting as a duty instead of a right, and I think there is some truth to that perception. But not if it means voting only because you feel you have to. Guess what -- you don't have to. Personally, I dislike voting against a candidate. I don't want to have to hold my nose and check off someone's name because he's the demon I can live with. I'd like to vote for candidates I believe really deserve my support.

And believe me, in today's world, that is difficult. Over the past 20 years, I can think of all too few men and women who have convinced me that they really ought to be in office. Too often I am left with a choice between candidates who are awful and candidates who are somewhat less awful, and that is a lousy choice that leaves voters stranded.

If voters start withholding their votes when they feel neither candidate deserves them, it will serve notice even on the winner that the voters were not impressed.