Down in New York City, the race for mayor is coming down in the minds of some voters to the candidates' stands on cats.
Specifically, whether it was right or wrong last month for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to shut down two subway lines in Brooklyn for a couple of hours so a pair of wandering kittens could be rescued from near the electrified third rail. Under questioning by reporters, the candidates in Tuesday's primaries offered sharply differing views of how they would have handled the matter.
"Chris would have stopped the trains for the kitties," said a spokeswoman for Democratic contender Christine Quinn.
"It's up to the MTA," said a spokeswoman for Republican front-runner Joe Lhota, a former MTA board chair, "but he would not shut down the line."
Of course, nothing so superficial would ever occupy voters' minds here, right? With taxes squeezing working families and schools failing, amid questions about how urban life can be improved, why would voters waste their breath — and, hey, why would a newspaper waste a single column inch of coverage — on something so trivial as cats?
It turns out that the way most people decide who to vote for isn't what you might expect. It may be that how a candidate would respond to a kitty on the tracks isn't such a bad way to judge things, in the context of what usually motivates a vote.
Several years ago, a Rutgers University professor, Richard Lau, did some detailed research into what drives voting decisions. He concluded that a voter's choice is rarely based on a rational analysis of which candidate's stances on an issue would best meet their needs. Rather, two other factors are the most significant predictors of how a person will vote.
First, Lau found, is the voter's starting bias. A candidate perceived as more conservative, for example, will most likely win the allegiance of a voter who self-identifies that way. Second comes the advice of friends, family and neighbors. If somebody you trust is pushing a candidate, you're going to take another look at that candidate.
If this all sounds reasonable and simple to you, then don't bemoan the fact that candidates aren't eager to jump forward with detailed policy analyses explaining their views on the important issues of the day. Why would they lock themselves into a stance if it's not going to change how you're going to vote, anyway?
Neither candidate for Albany mayor in Tuesday's Democratic primary — City Treasurer Kathy Sheehan and former Councilman Corey Ellis — has been specific about how they would confront the huge financial challenges facing Albany in the years ahead. It frustrates our editorial board, but you almost can't blame the candidates. Voters aren't going to make their decision on that basis.
It's true that our democracy hinges on the hope that people understand enough about the issues confronting their government to intelligently elect their representatives. "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives," wrote James Madison, the father of our Constitution.
But what Madison didn't foresee is the way issues so rapidly arise nowadays. The facts that propel public decision-making often aren't in place from one election to the next. Congress is confronting a huge decision about military intervention in Syria, a prospect nobody raised during the 2012 election cycle. Not a single member of Congress got instructions on that issue from the electorate a year ago.
An election really isn't a chance to find someone whose views precisely match our own. Rather, it's about entrusting someone with the task of making good decisions on our behalf.
It's not that an election should be a popularity contest, but it also need not be a multiple choice quiz to find a candidate with pristine stances on the issues. That is, you don't support a candidate because it's somebody you'd like to share a beer with — go find a buddy for that role — but you might want to offer your support to somebody you'd trust to hold your beer money.
This makes character an all-important factor in a political campaign, and explains why so much attention is paid to defining a candidate in voters' minds.
If you're electing somebody to an executive role — a mayor or town supervisor, for example — you want somebody who can get things done. If you're electing a legislator, you want someone who can work well with others and build coalitions. You're looking for a good listener in either case, somebody with a sense of independence and perspective. And a sense of humor.
And if all that fails, consider Mayor Stubbs, who won a write-in election 15 years ago in the Alaskan village of Talkeetna, about 110 miles north of Anchorage. Stubbs is a cat. "I know it's ridiculous," Ashley Kearns, who works at a local pizza shop, told a reporter. "But the town is run really well." Take that, Joe Lhota.