In the interest of full disclosure

I believe in the privacy of the vote. We live however in a world where people believe that a persons actions in the past are indicators of what they are likely to do in the future. The efforts of graduating from a conservatory of music for example is a pretty good indication that a person would be an asset to a symphony orchestra.
A person seeking a life in public service, a politician is asking the public to hire them to cast votes on their behalf. Now perhaps there is something to be learned from their prior business dealings or personal relationships, but if I am electing someone to cast votes on my behalf, if I had one opportunity to invade their privacy I want to know who they vote for and why.
In an attempt to start a trend of voluntary disclosure I will now tell you who I voted for in the August primary and why (personal voting records should only be disclosed voluntarily and I think the willingness to disclose that information in itself is more telling than who they might have slept with 20 years ago or last week)
Out of principle I did not vote in any of the uncontested races (save Joe Neguse for CU Regent, I voted for Joe because he is a good friend of mine and he did have an opponent through the assembly process which satisfies the issue I outline below) I did not vote for HD10 or County Commissioners all of whom I may vote for in November because an uncontested primary is a coronation. I'd rather give a tacit endorsement for lack of options than be complicit to the local democratic parties lack of democracy. I finally get it. I understand how the self righeous non voter feels. They are still wrong when it comes to a contested general election where the winner can claim the silent majority as a key support base for their agenda, but I do apologize for my sometimes harsh words to those earnestly trying to "not be a part of the problem". I get it now.
Now to the actual races. Little surprise here to the 5 people that pay attention to what I think I voted for Jared Polis for Congress, and Cindy Carlisle for State House 18. These two candidates have the most comprehensive platforms in their respective races. They are both the "insurgent" candidates and until we have a competitve democracy with choices across a broad ideallogical spectrum I will vote against the machine, unless the insurgent is incompetent, fortunately this go around the insurgent candidates had the decency to be the better candidates also, how convienent! Lastly these candidates both represent most closely the values of the districts they seek to represent.
Niether candidate is the candidate most similar to my own philosophy in governance (those candidates would be Joan Fitzgerald and Rollie Heath respectively, what can I say I'm a "Boulder Conservative" in New York they call that a "Cuomo Democrat") However both make compelling arguments for their positions, have clearly given the issues a great deal of thought and most important actually listen to those with whom they disagree not with scorn but rather a sincere curiosity. They both view debate as much as an opportunity to learn how they may be wrong as it is a chance to prove they are right.
We have challenges that are significant both here in Colorado as well as for our Nation. The temptation for us to all go to our political corners and be uncompromising is tempting and perhaps in my dogged strive for electing critical thinkers I am in my own way guilty of that crime of human nature. But I urge you to fight the temptation and vote for the best candidate for the job. That person may not always sing your song, but take it from this Clarinet player, left to our own devices, very few of us would create a playlist anybody else is interested in.
I hope candidates for office follow my example, to me their voting record, and their defense (or admition of error) is much more valuable than their latest tax return.