Why is one candidate better than the other...

Am I the only one who is getting sick and tired of candidates who represent a certain area (say a county commissioner or house district) getting endorsements based heavily/solely on things other than what they'd do for their constituents?

I keep hearing from people that their group endorsed this person because they're gay or because they're a woman, or they're from labor, or would lobby better for their group.

Doesn't their district matter? Shouldn't it matter how well a person will represent the district?

Isn't it better to have a candidate who will do great things for their district, knows their district, AND will stand up for gay rights than it is to have someone who does not know the district or its issues, but is gay?

Isn't it better to have someone who has lived in a district for more than a few months, has been extremely involved in their district, etc. elected?

Since when did we all start letting our little niche organizations pick and choose which candidates to endorse solely on things like are they the same ethnic group, are they the same sexual orientation, are they the same sex as us, etc.?

I'm sorry, but to me the most important thing should be how will they represent their district, followed by how well will they serve the state. Then you look at your specific issues (gay rights, environment, women's choice, etc.) and see how each candidate does.

This isn't what is happening.

Is it that people are forgetting that a candidate is elected to represent a district-- that this candidate should know the district, know the issues and the people, and will work hard in Salem for that district. Yes, they'll do work for the entire state, but they should be the voice for the people in that district.

I'm tired of candidates who seem to think "any district will do"-- candidates who move to a district with an empty seat just so they can run. People who have no idea what the major issues or problems are in the community-- people who seem to think one district is the same as the next.

Time and time again I'm hearing from organizations that endorsed a candidate because they're gay and will therefore stand up for gay rights. Or that because a candidate is a woman, they're endorsing her because she knows their issues. Or even that a candidate is being endorsed because he or she is from the same ethnic group. Does that mean they'll be a better elected official or represent the district better?

These endorsements have a lot of weight when it comes to the public. They look through the voter guide and see which groups have endorsed whom. They assume that these people were chosen not just because of a single issue, but because they are the best for the district.

And often times they're not.

Several such groups I have supported in the past. I refuse to do so anymore until they begin making endorsements with a heavy weight on how well they know and will represent the district, and not just on their issue.