Those who know me at all well (read here, “almost nobody”), will likely be aware of one thing, if no other. They’ll be apprised of the fact, that I’m a “confirmed non-voter.”

I’m not going to go into the details as to why that’s the case, at this point in time. Further, I’m not going to expound on why it is, that I continue to pen articles on voting and government, despite my not being one who casts ballots.

Allow me to say simply, that my unwillingness to do so, neither makes me as generally clueless as many would assume, nor does it make me uninterested in the government under which I live, to say nothing of whether or not I have a wealth of information at hand, with regard to that subject.

As well, most people I know—whether on a casual basis, or in more intimate ways—are voters. This means helping them to be informed on their options, can hardly be a bad thing, assuming I know what’s going one, and act in accordance with that fact.

Having disclaimed appropriately, let’s get on with it.

I saw recently, a social media post, in which someone said for all intents and purposes, “If I’d have known Mr Biden was for more lock-downs, I wouldn’t have voted for him.”

You’d have to be living underground somewhere, to not be aware of two facts.

The first is, much of the country is still locked down as a result of COVID-19 as I write this.

The second, is that Mr Biden and his running mate, have both openly expressed their support of continuing and extending lock-downs, “if the science warranted such actions.”

Writing what I just did, breaks one of the cardinal rules of this blog—or it would, if I didn’t intend to relate the previous social media post, and related facts to, something timeless.

The reality is, there’s a basic idea, each individual should keep in mind when voting. In truth, the concept is so basic to life, I shouldn’t have to apply it specifically to voting, in the first place.

That consideration can be summed up thusly, “If you’re going to trust anybody with anything of consequence, take the time to come to understand the person beforehand, if at all possible.”

You can be sure such a plan is a good one, when talking about entrusting somebody with the highest executive office in a country having a population of more than three hundred million individuals.

Like it or not, if you choose to exercise right of enfranchisement, it’s incumbent on you, to ensure the person you help to place in office, is in your mind, fit to reside there.

The individual indicating such a serious lack of knowledge regarding the candidate she was working to help to fill the position in question, certainly did not make it seem as though she was equipped to exercise the right of selection given her.

Here’s what mystifies me. Imagine you were working in a given job.

Now envision the employer for whom you toiled, decided another position had to be filled, in order for all needed tasks to be completed.

Advertisements are placed. Resumes are submitted. People are interviewed.

You’re aware a given person vying for the position is not in any sense qualified. You’re also fully certain, the person is not just lazy, but a thief as well.

The department head for your area, chooses the person in question, as the most suitable to come to work.

They ask those in your section, for feedback.

Do you hold your peace, or do you make it plain the applicant being considered is not a good choice?

I know my answer, I hope you’re clear on yours.

Having that person come to work in your company is substantially less of a problem, than inviting them to run your country, or write and change laws.

Yet people asked, would assuredly say the opposite. They would also almost certainly, be more concerned with sitting next to a bad workmate, than having that person occupy public office somewhere.

Fellows in toil can be fired. They can be removed from their positions in many parts of the country, with no reason cited.

Unless politicians are guilty of major wrongdoing, and that impropriety is exposed to the light of day, chances are they’ll at the very least, serve a full term, after election.

Most such individuals, already have public records. For some, that’s a function of holding some former office. For others, it’s a result of having been in the world of work, and folks knowing enough about them, to help yet other people, to be informed.

At the very least, you should be able to take the time, to listen to what they have to say, and make your decision based on what you hear.

Again, the person earlier mentioned, appears to have not even done that. That’s obvious, based on the statements of the figure who she seems to have potentially helped, to place in office.

Allow me to make one more critical point. If you’re willing to base your choice of a given politician on one consideration, one of two things must be true.

Either the position held is supremely important, or the chances are, you should probably reconsider your perspective.

I know “one issue voters.” I have such folks in my family. The positions in question are things like, “Should it be legal to abort babies?”

Perhaps the idea of lock-downs is sufficiently important to disqualify a candidate on that basis.

If it is, it would seem like it’s pretty darned important, to know the potential office-holder’s viewpoint on it. Again, this seems to have not been among the things at least, the person mentioned in the social media comment, sought to determine.

I don’t care if a person is a Republican, a Democrat, or something else entirely, knowing who they are, what they represent, and will do given the chance, is of strong concern. If you’re not willing to find such things out, perhaps you should sit out the selection process, at least for that race?

Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.