Suffrage. Or Sufferage. Or Something.

In the hotly contested Provo mayoral race, it comes down to a choice between two very conservative Republican white Mormon males (VCRWMM's). OK, so that is not really surprising. But it presents me with something of a dilemma.

Oh, it's not that I think either one of them would do a bad job. On the contrary, I think either of them would probably do an adequate job. One of Dave Barry's list of 25 things he's learned in 50 years runs something like,

The value of advertising is that it tells you the exact opposite of what the advertiser actually thinks. For example: If Coke and Pepsi spend billions of dollars to convince you that there are significant differences between these two products, both companies realize that Pepsi and Coke are virtually identical.

Similarly, the fact that each candidate wants us to believe they will do a much better job than their opponent points to the likelihood that really, they will do about the same things for the same reasons. Especially in this case. Both are businessmen turned politicians, family men, church men, good citizens. Both would do a much better job of being mayor than I would.

So, you ask, with so little at stake, why the dilemma?

It's a matter of principle. Three principles, actually:

1. I think some Utah Republican State Representatives and senators are inflexible and arrogant and have control issues, and they bother me quite a lot. (I say "some" here because I don't really know about all of them, and this way any of them reading it will actually think "he doesn't mean me" so s/he won't call for a general audit of my state taxes for the last 16 years. ) I think they are an example of "too much power corrupts too much."

2. A few other people bother me on general principles. Not to name names, but some of them write management/self-help books in which the number 7 figures prominently.

3. Principles. People who hide behind principles, as though that was always the moral high ground, really bug me.

So this means I obviously would rather not vote for a person who is in, or is endorsed by someone in, one or more of these three categories. It is true that being endorsed by someone doesn't mean you act like them or believe what they believe. But you can't be too careful.

And there's the rub. One of the candidates is a Utah Republican State Representative. But the other has the endorsement of several members of the Utah House and Senate that I would classify as having such unbelievably large control issues that they have a hard time walking. On the other hand, the first one has the endorsement of some Highly Effective people that bug me on general principles.

One accuses the other of once having been a (gasp) Democrat. As an aside, sometimes that's the only way to run for public office in Utah, if you aren't quite far enough right for the party elite. Of course, you won't win, but you can run. But anyway, it seems the accuser is playing "more Republican than thou," which also bugs me. But to balance things out, our allegedly-once-Democratic friend believes that "It is wrong for government to do for people what they, their families or private charities can and should do on their own." And that "Free markets produce better outcomes than government programs." Both of which sound to me a lot like Principles That Aren't Always True But I'll Stand By Them With A Foolish Consistency. I think public schools are one example of something the free market shouldn't get their hands on, for example.

Are you beginning to catch my dilemma? If I vote for either of these candidates, it would seem to validate one thing or another that (as I believe I've mentioned) bugs me. So it's a matter of the lesser of two irritants. But it's a tough call.

Right now Candidate A has a slim edge over Candidate 2. We'll see what will happens tomorrow when I'm alone with my conscience. And my quarter.