Bad Choices

This election year seems worse than usual in forcing voters to choose between unpalatable candidates. There seem any number of races where one’s political preferences preclude voting for the individual from one party, and the other person is so bad it’s morally debasing to vote for him or her. South Carolina, Delaware, Illinois, New York have made the headlines, but the ethical dilemma is everywhere at every level.

I live in a one-party county and our bad race is sheriff. The current man was prevented from running by term limits. Seven men ran in the Democratic primary in June, none in the Republican. The man who won earned 26% of the 8,135 votes cast. There are no run-offs.

Local newspapers provide no help. They said all the candidates had serious legal problems, but didn’t elaborate. Why they feel it cute to be coy I don’t know. No one trusts the newspapers or other local news media.

I gather the man I voted for had been convicted of state tax evasion, which I assume means our onerous and impossible to understand state gross receipts tax. I was pretty sure from my one contact with him through his business that he was incapable of managing a small office that depended on responding to emergency phone calls, and would have no ability to run two that are understaffed with 20 deputies protecting more than 40,500 people scattered over more than 5,000 square miles where heroin, cocaine and alcohol abuse are endemic.

I voted for him because my neighbor had his sign in his front yard. I wanted to vote for the man who had the best chance of defeating the one man I didn’t want to win. My choice came in second with 1,304 votes. Two others attracted similar numbers of voters.

The man I didn’t want to win was removed from his position as a Magistrate Court judge for corruption. He had personally released a friend arrested for drunk driving from jail. He was also accused of intervening in a domestic violence dispute by telling the woman she didn’t need to appear in court, even though she had been served with a subpoena.

Last spring his son was accused of theft by the owner of a local tattoo parlor. The next night his brothers went to the business to rough him up. Before the trial, all the witness’s statements were lost by the state police.

He got his office in the first place through his wife, who is the area’s state representative and the daughter of a politically powerful man.

There were no good choices running for sheriff. There are so many reports of violence, theft and general bad behavior by the deputies, I sometimes wonder if there are any decent men working in the office at all. One candidate was a former deputy had been arrested when he was young for drunk driving, and another had been investigated for protecting someone from a drunk driving charge.

The local state and city officers are no better. The candidate I opposed was investigated for fixing traffic tickets when he was a sergeant with the state police, and another was discharged for stealing evidence. Another was fired by the city police for unprofessional conduct and hired by the county, while one of the brothers involved in the tattoo incident worked as a city policeman at the time.

The problem isn’t simply our sheriff’s department. One learns to survive by avoiding any contact with them and assuming there will be no help in an emergency. Law and order depends of the values of one’s neighbors. There is no protection against gangs or intimidation.

The problem is what happens to a democracy when voters have no opportunity to choose between two good candidates. Even if one disagrees with them both, one likes to think they are at least qualified.

Instead, the act of voting has descended from picking the least bad option to playing odds on who can best prevent the worst outcome.

This leads to greater voter anger and apathy than any actions by politicians. Political parties that can’t field qualified candidates demonstrate contempt for the government they proport to represent.

With no opposition this Tuesday, I can at least abstain from voting for the man for sheriff. If the other party were running someone, I would face a serious problem - not of voting my convictions, but again of calculating the odds. Citizens should not have to ask themselves, is it safe to take a principled stand against corruption or must they vote no matter how reprehensible the outcome.