Tweet
Recently due to the timing of a ballot I received in the mail coming on the tail end of a very public political pissing match I decided I was going to be more critical of my candidates for city council. As such I located their websites figuring the best place to learn about a candidate is the location where they have all the information about themselves.
I was distraught by what I learned. In all three cases every "About Me" section listed jobs previously held, but not how they affected the job they are running for, what their kids and families are doing and are like, though it has nothing to do with the job they are going for.
When it came to the issues two of them stated their stance on only one of the issues my city is dealing with and the third didn't do that much.
Now I emailed all three candidates and politely explained what is wrong with their sites from the point of view of a voter.
One candidate never responded.
The second candidate responded but told me that he is trying to show he can relate to the community and that he doesn't state his position on most issues because he feels we the voting public can read the newspaper for that.
I informed him that I am not looking to see if he would be a fun guy to have at my neighborhood block party but rather that I am interviewing him for a job and that in a job interview he should be explaining why I should give him the job not why I should take him to Callahan's for drinks after work.
The third candidate at the time disappointed me the most in that he didn't even have his stance established on the Transportation issue the only issue the other two at least discussed.
In fact like the others he listed previous jobs and what he wants in vague terms without quantifying it. For example one of them stated they want, "Better schools" without saying what they think is wrong with schools or how they could make the schools better.
He impressed me though. He emailed me back and said that I was very right and made a lot of perfectly valid points and that he had let his attempt to be brief in interviews, which makes sense, to carry over into his website.
He plans on making changes as well as adding details of what it is his plans are.
So in your opinion was I right in my assessment that voters want "I think the schools are suffering due to 20 year old text books that are often out of date and need to fund the purchase of new textbooks" or would voters be happier with, "We need better schools!!"
Side Note: He now also wants to meet with me to further discuss my critique of his website.
I was distraught by what I learned. In all three cases every "About Me" section listed jobs previously held, but not how they affected the job they are running for, what their kids and families are doing and are like, though it has nothing to do with the job they are going for.
When it came to the issues two of them stated their stance on only one of the issues my city is dealing with and the third didn't do that much.
Now I emailed all three candidates and politely explained what is wrong with their sites from the point of view of a voter.
One candidate never responded.
The second candidate responded but told me that he is trying to show he can relate to the community and that he doesn't state his position on most issues because he feels we the voting public can read the newspaper for that.
I informed him that I am not looking to see if he would be a fun guy to have at my neighborhood block party but rather that I am interviewing him for a job and that in a job interview he should be explaining why I should give him the job not why I should take him to Callahan's for drinks after work.
The third candidate at the time disappointed me the most in that he didn't even have his stance established on the Transportation issue the only issue the other two at least discussed.
In fact like the others he listed previous jobs and what he wants in vague terms without quantifying it. For example one of them stated they want, "Better schools" without saying what they think is wrong with schools or how they could make the schools better.
He impressed me though. He emailed me back and said that I was very right and made a lot of perfectly valid points and that he had let his attempt to be brief in interviews, which makes sense, to carry over into his website.
He plans on making changes as well as adding details of what it is his plans are.
So in your opinion was I right in my assessment that voters want "I think the schools are suffering due to 20 year old text books that are often out of date and need to fund the purchase of new textbooks" or would voters be happier with, "We need better schools!!"
Side Note: He now also wants to meet with me to further discuss my critique of his website.
Comment