Ever since I started to pay attention to politics, I’ve found that I am aligned very much with the Republican Party on most issues. From what I’ve learned growing up, to what I’ve learned at a student in the College of Business, Republican policies have typically made the most sense to me and aligned with my own opinions. However, it’s no secret that this election has been a very unconventional one. 

Technically speaking, I’ve always been a proponent of small government and laissez faire policies and I’m very concerned for national security and the economy. What I hope will be accomplished by these policies are things such as equality of opportunity, lower taxes, a healthy market that doesn’t penalize small business ownership and that someone way up in D.C. isn’t dictating how I spend my money.  

While I am a Republican, something I have always advocated for is the idea that you don’t HAVE to vote for your party’s candidate if you agree more with the other party’s candidate. It doesn’t mean that you’ve changed parties; it simply means that you’re not blindly voting for your team rather than evaluating each side’s policies. Little did I know I would be faced with this dilemma in the first election in which I could vote. 

My favorite candidate was Marco Rubio. To me, he represented hope, potential and possibility. The American people, however, chose differently. This left me in a dilemma: do I remain loyal to my party even though I have my reservations – to put it diplomatically – about Donald Trump? 

To make matters more difficult, ever since Hillary Clinton became a name to me, I haven’t been a fan. At all. Her policies are far to the left, she has a very liberal pro-choice stance, I viewed Benghazi as her leaving our ambassadors like sitting ducks, and her email scandal – to me – was a national security breach. 

So what changed for me? Well, I started to legitimately research Secretary Clinton’s plans and policies, as well as what she has advocated for in the past. What did I find? I actually don’t disagree with all of her plans and policies. I definitely don’t agree with all of them, but I agree with more than I would have thought. 

I also found that ever since she was in college she has been an advocate for women, children and the poor. Let’s put that in numbers: she is currently 68 years old. That means it has been nearly 50 years that she has consistently advocated for the same groups. Not only that, I truly believe that she has a temperament that will protect us more than that of Mr. Trump. Watching him in debates truly makes me nervous when picturing another world leader sitting across from him instead of Secretary Clinton. She comes prepared, composed and ready for the attacks; Trump comes ready to bully and repeat himself incessantly.

Am I in an ideal situation when it comes to voting? Definitely not. Do I believe I’m choosing “the lesser of the two evils”? I can’t say I am. For starters, I don’t view Secretary Clinton as evil. For another, she is an advocate for minorities, children, equality of opportunity, lower taxes for the middle class and the elite paying their fair share of taxes. In short, we have many similar goals with different ideas of how to achieve these goals. What I believe is that I am choosing the candidate that, regardless of party affiliation, is the better fit for the job. It’s more important to pick the best person for the job, even if you don’t get everything you want and can’t have everything your way. Yes, I would prefer more Republican policies; but I believe compromise is something we are desperately missing in this country today. I see very little, if any, give and take on either side. 

What I encourage everyone to do is to honestly research candidates on both sides, and make the choice that you believe is best for the country as a whole. So, to conclude: I am a Republican – and I never thought I would say this, but – I’m with Her.