When we go to the polls, we make choices. The hardest ones are not about whether a Democrat or a Republican is the better choice. To me, the most perplexing votes are when I am asked to choose between a candidate that has government experience and one that does not.

How much does experience matter in elective office? I think it depends on what type of position we are voting to elect. Like any new job, once elected there is a learning curve if you have never worked or served in government before. Government does not operate as the private sector does.

Government shouldn’t work as a private business because public money is being expended. There needs to be more safeguards and more hoops to jump through. Bureaucracy is created to do just that.

I am more than willing to vote for an inexperienced person to represent me in local government or in the state legislature. Most people who initially run for these positions have the best interests of their communities as their reasons for running. There are seasoned staff employees to explain the intricacies of government to them once elected.

I am quite leery of voting for someone with no public track record for an executive office. There is a big difference between “shaking things up” and destroying the system, and knowing the difference is much harder for a neophyte.

You need to have the ability to do two things in an executive position.The first is to be able to take advice. The elected executive must be a confident enough leader to surround himself with the very best people he can find. The second is to know your own strengths and weaknesses. Any individual that has been successful has an ego. You need to know how to keep it in check.

The last type of elected official is the technical position such as Clerk of the Court, Tax Collector, Sheriff or Property Appraiser. In most places, these positions are not elected ones. Except for sheriff, these are departments within other governments. Those department heads are appointed. They are apolitical and technocratic.

Florida has a long tradition of electing these officials. We also had a long tradition of electing our school superintendents. Other places elect chief executives to run local government. We don’t do that here. Is one way better than the other?

For those technical offices, the person I vote for must have experience in the field. By running, they are applying for a job and I am one of the deciders on whom to hire. These positions are important. I don’t want my sheriff to be the guy that was an accountant before he was elected.

If we are going to insist that we choose a person to run a technical department of government by popular vote, we need to look at his/her resume. You need to have both relevant technical knowledge as well as executive experience. If you make the campaign a popularity contest instead of a job interview, you may not get the best person in that job.

Depending on the position, a voter can take different factors into consideration. For county commission, experience isn’t as important as judgement. A connection with the voter is important. A county commissioner or a state senator is a representative of the people that elected him.

A sheriff or other constitutional officers are technocrats that enforce existing statutes. They need to have executive experience and knowledge in the field we are entrusting them with overseeing. Electing someone without those attributes is bad public policy and ultimately bad for the taxpayer.