According to The New York Times’ year-by-year timeline of Harris’, Walz’s, Trump’s and Vance’s professional records, the Democratic ticket spent the majority of their years being involved in the federal government, while the Republican ticket showed dedication to entrepreneurship and business management.

Comparing the two side by side, it is evident that Harris-Walz is more connected to public service while Trump-Vance is tied to the private sector. Both aspects are crucial to the very fabric of our nation, so, how do we decide on who to select? Do prior experiences matter as much as consistent ideology and well-evaluated policies?

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

As a young person participating in civic engagement, I believe these qualifications provide different angles. From what I have witnessed, young voters make informed decisions after holistically reviewing what each entails. Whether the candidates are long-running veterans or new faces to politics, their previous experiences can always be a topic of contention that also weighs into voting outcomes — and this election cycle is no different. 

Their occupations before taking office reveal critical contexts to their platforms and help rally groups with similar roots and upbringings. On one hand, Trump and Vance advanced in their audience outreach by branding themselves as “outsiders” to the traditional political sphere. Representing a financially profitable corporate world, this characterization helped them gain traction among those discontent with corruption and scandals long-instituted in the White House. 

On the other hand, although Harris and Walz cannot label themselves as “business people” who take advantage of interactions with the banking system to stimulate the economy, their commitment to judicial reform and state legislation brings them close to communities that rely on law enforcement and local jurisdiction. 

On the surface level, the emotional and moral appeals triggered by the two parties are desperate, and the belief that one party can compensate for the mistakes of the other seems viable to citizens rooted in the two extreme ends of the political spectrum. Truthfully, they are trying to reach the same “common voters” who are discouraged by radical solutions, especially residents in swing states who are looking to “relate” to their national leaders.  

When researching the most common occupations out of the past 46 presidencies, the tally indicated that 31 served in the military, 27 worked as lawyers, 18 as governors and 18 as representatives. Although tracing simple patterns can seem statistically blunt in matters as complex as these competitive tickets, the calculation demonstrates gradually ascending to the presidency is considered more agreeable than sudden progression.

Titles such as lawyers and army generals may not be as significant as ruling the entire federal government, but these early responsibilities are still no ordinary jobs. In fact, although Republicans often attacked Democrats for elitist status and vice versa with populist mentalities, the same type of caricaturistic defamation can also be interpreted in reverse order. All four of them received higher education from prestigious universities to stand out as intellectual figures, yet they claim to be sympathetic to average Americans’ daily needs. Trump’s and Vance’s combined net worth places them in the top 0.1% and Harris and Walz are fighting fiercely for support from worker’s unions.

Instead of reducing their historical accomplishments into one absolutely public and the other inevitably private, the best strategy is to lean into their track records without appearing out of touch with the general demographic. The impressions of being a “servant” to the underrepresented communities or being an exclusive socialite among the upper crust do not translate as effectively as a comprehensive image of well-roundedness.

Resonating with prolonged voting anxiety following Biden’s exit from the race, I concur that it is increasingly difficult to make a conscientious decision to find a suitable presidential administration. As an international student who is not eligible to vote at all, I still feel very compelled to learn about the tumultuous updates with the campaign trails and debates. Selecting a responsible ticket is crucial to every resident in the country, including hundreds of thousands of foreigners. 

Ultimately, we struggle with identifying leadership with authentic origin stories who bridge the common ground because our electoral system inherently promotes bigotry by giving certain states disproportionate voting power. Under the long-running yet defective winner-takes-all method, we lack the equal distribution to be a true representative democracy. If we commit to electoral reform, bipartisanship will no longer dominate candidacy, leaving more room for a pool of high-quality, diverse candidates. After all, the tactic of opting out of voting is not a good approach to preserving democracy, but it is a thought many youth grapple with. 

To walk away from this predicament, I want to remind everyone that participating in a democratic election is a privilege in and out of itself, and we have to take advantage of every cycle, as they are chances for gradual renewal and change in direction.