Here’s today’s Officially Reductive Question: Do you vote by party, policy or person?

One of those three p’s usually drives citizens into a voting booth. In November, you’ll probably wear one of those “I Voted” stickers because you’re a staunch Republican or Democrat who turned up to support the party, or because you vote gun rights or women’s health issues and, therefore, choose candidates who most effectively argue for those causes, or because you think a particular candidate will be an intelligent, significant and venerable leader.

Or, of course, you might simply show up to make sure a certain somebody doesn’t get elected. If that’s the case, I’d say you’re still voting by person.

It’s a reductive question because these three Ps are often combined: It’s a rare Republican who’s deeply invested in protecting a woman’s right to reproductive freedom just as it’s a rare Democrat who is fiercely protective of, say, capital punishment. What this means, in effect, is that even though you insist you vote for the person, all the persons for whom you have ever voted just happened to belong to one party.

Policies are aligned with parties and the candidates stand on these platforms the way a passenger -- or, indeed, a captain -- stands on the deck of a vessel as it heads in a certain direction. They retain the ability to move independently and yet their larger direction is already established.

So what platforms matter most to you? Protecting Social Security? Restructuring disability payments so that medical experts assess annually whether those receiving checks are unable to work? Immigration policy? Education? Environment? Taxes?

I was on a talk show recently: A local station was discussing the mood of the electorate and the possible outcome for this year’s elections.

When my witty debating partner declared he’d vote for Donald Trump despite not liking him, I interrupted with a sincere “But Trump doesn’t know anything.”

“He knows enough to build a multibillion-dollar empire,” said my counterpart.

“Does that mean you’d elect Walt Disney as president because he gave us Disneyland, and Disney World?” I said while making Mickey Mouse ear gestures. “And does that qualify someone to lead the United States on the global stage?”

Those of us campaigning for Hillary Rodham Clinton are accused of voting for gender: “You just want a woman to be president!”

But because I would have no more voted for Sarah Palin than Ayn Rand or Kim Kardashian (who manages a multi-million-dollar corporation built around TV appearances and a personal brand), gender isn’t the reason I support Clinton.

I want an elected leader who has proved her worth, participated in the political process and regards power as a partnership, not a personality trait.

A good man, a friend I’ve known for years, is running on the Republican ticket. He’s not in my district so I can’t vote for him, but I do plan to support him. It’s a rare gesture for me. I’m well aware that we’d disagree on some fundamental issues. But precisely because I know him to be a man of integrity, intelligence and authentic civic-mindedness, I trust him. He possesses that almost ineffable quality once referred to as character.

For example, I don’t think that he’d be bullied by moneyed backers into voting for policies depriving struggling members of the community from services or access to care. I do think, however, that he might see different pathways or choose different tactics to mitigate their difficulties than I might choose.

Because I believe him to be thoughtful and well informed, I would also have to respect his position. It’s important that we respect our rivals, including our political rivals. Our rival is not our enemy. Rival comes from the Latin rivus, which means “drinking from the same river.” We are competing for the same resources but we are not alien to each other; we stand on different sides and must negotiate.

Draining the river dry for spite is not an option; it’s not what reasonable human beings do. Reasonable human beings figure out how to keep it flowing, officially reducing the need to drive us further apart.

The final p’s are practical: Perspective must be twinned with passion, not blinded by it.

Gina Barreca is a columnist for the Hartford Courant. Readers may email her at ginabarreca.com. –Ed.

(Tribune Content Agency)