The beauty of democracy, after all, is that we each get to choose what metrics matter when we pick the people to represent us at the decision-making table.
The other side of the coin is that it's a terrible way to pick a cohesive team.
I'll try to select a good mix on my voting paper and so will you, but in all likelihood, we will get some Frankensteinian combination of the two as likely to combust as to congeal.
I prefer the party system. The win/lose stakes are higher but at least you know who's at the top and who would need a miracle to get a seat - and that at least they should be pulling in the same direction if they get in. The structure provides some comfort.
Councillors and mayors I find much more unpredictable. They might pitch themselves as rates hawks then vote for that pricey project you consider a "nice-to-have". They might say they are solution-focused but only raise problems and complaints. They can present a glorious vision without needing to show they have the support they will need to bring it home.
And the biases they do not tell us about might be even worse, and with greater potential to impact decision-making than those of one MP in Parliament.
I think sometimes, however, we expect too much from the people that allow themselves to be nominated for these roles.
They may make the final decisions and set the direction, but this happens in a context still greatly influenced by the agenda and information presented by the council organisation - and within the laws set by central government.
They have one employee: the chief executive.
Elected members are given few resources beyond their own wits and research ability to seek independent advice - a hole in the system local government expert Peter McKinlay has written about extensively.
And yet we seem to expect them to have technical expertise in the broad range of functions councils perform today. Certainly, we'll blame them when it goes wrong - that is part of what they sign up for.
We want experience befitting people who will take charge of millions - in some cases billions - worth of our assets and dollars. But we also want deep community connections so they can hear us and reflect our wishes.
We want cautious, questioning sceptics who also have a positive attitude and bold ideas. People who will do what they promised, come what may, but who will also keep an open mind.
Other qualities are less contradictory: good judgment, community values, respect for our money.
It's not an easy job and one person cannot embody it all. The right team perhaps can but, you're going to have to accept that one's up to the universe.
But it's not so hopeless as to make voting a pointless exercise. The opposite. Much like herd immunity, the final result is only meaningful if many take part.
