Dear Editor:
Full disclaimer: I am not a resident of Hamilton County. The purpose of this letter is not to express favor for any candidate. It is a response to Gina Sloderbeck’s letter to the editor in the Thursday, March 22 edition of The Reporter.
The use of data is a good thing. Facts are invaluable because they leave little room for emotion. Good citizens should use data and facts to make decisions, especially during elections. Of course, facts alone cannot determine decisions; there often is not a direct link. It’s important to analyze facts for their relevance before jumping to a conclusion. In other words, critical thinking is key.
When reading Ms. Sloderbeck’s letter, I was struck by the legion of logical fallacies and the thinly-veiled bias peeking from behind a tattered curtain of “research” that led to her self-described educated decision. I’ll do my best to address some of the illogic.
Primarily, I find it odd that Ms. Sloderbeck chose to use Mr. Quakenbush’s list of accomplishments as the only metrics by which the other candidates are measured. Of course, election tactics aren’t fair and candidates are almost always measured by their opponents’ achievements, but shouldn’t a citizen purporting to make objective, data-driven decisions strive to do better? Or, at minimum, shouldn’t such a person explain why she chose one candidate’s virtual resume over any other candidate’s – and why such choice was the best way to measure? If you are going to use a resume as a metric, wouldn’t a more effective measure be the resume of a sheriff who has already served and excelled in this position?
On a related note, why is there no extrapolation on the specifics of college degrees? The obvious question is, why does it matter when no statute exists legally requiring a Hamilton County Sheriff to hold any post-secondary degree? If, however, a degree is a necessary requirement, what degrees satisfy Ms. Sloderbeck? Though most can agree a college degree is a useful accomplishment, what makes a sheriff candidate who has a college degree inherently better-suited for the job than one who does not have a college degree? Ms. Sloderbeck would have done better in her analysis if she explained why other voters should think this is important.
Why was “15+ years of law enforcement service” chosen as a metric? What is the statistical significance of 15 or more years? Why not 25 years? Why not 10 years? Why not six months? If the “most experience” is a valid metric, then clearly the candidate with the most experience should hold the office. Either I’m missing something, or this is an arbitrary metric.
I could be wrong.
I could be deeply, deeply wrong.
It may be the case that anyone who looks at Ms. Sloderbeck’s spreadsheet of criteria but disagrees with her conclusion is uneducated. After all, that is what Ms. Sloderbeck implied, albeit indirectly, when she stated her manner of analyzing facts, figures, and data is what leads her to an educated decision. Are there other ways to make educated decisions, or must Hamilton County voters rely on Ms. Sloderbeck’s spreadsheets? What if another voter devises a spreadsheet of criteria that directly conflicts Ms. Sloderbeck’s and claims it led that voter to an educated decision? Once again, in creeps the ironically arbitrary nature of Ms. Sloderbeck’s arguments.
I am not questioning Ms. Sloderbeck’s convictions. I am not claiming she is uneducated. I am not suggesting she is dishonest. I do not condone anyone who might make attacks on Ms. Sloderbeck’s character, since character attacks are so frequently the tool of political ridicule. Clearly, she cares about Hamilton County and its future. I applaud her courage and sense of civic duty in writing a letter to the editor, and I encourage others to do so.
I do wish, however, that Ms. Sloderbeck would exercise a more critical analysis of the facts she chooses.
Isaac Taylor
Wingate, Ind.