In elections, it is very difficult to focus on the real issues; it seems that the public often tends to get sidetracked by things that really have no bearing on what is at stake.
For example, we discuss such issues as who has the best service to Boy Scouting, of what kinds of service is given to the community. What it would seem is that we should focus on what attributes are pertinent to the qualifications to fulfill the job. The current justice of the peace primary pits three good candidates against each other. Each has certain qualifications, similar but different. The office has certain minimum qualifications. We, as voters, must decide which candidate is best qualified to fill the position. Should we, as voters, accept the minimum, or do we choose the best qualified?
In my analysis of the candidates, I would choose Barry Standifird as the best qualified. In any event, each of us should vote for our choice and not let a few decide.
John A. Swenson, Payson