Voting matters, but ...

Few foibles embarrass politicians as much as the revelation that they failed to vote.

We understand why this is so.

The hypocrisy is so rich that it’s practically irresistible for media pundits.

Sure, candidate A. You want me to vote for you. Do as I say, not as I don’t, right?

A few weeks ago Chris Dudley, the former Portland Trail Blazer who’s running for Oregon governor as a Republican, publicly apologized after The Oregonian reported that he had failed to vote in seven of the past 13 elections for which he was eligible.

In a nod to fairness, the Portland newspaper followed that report by publishing the voting records of the other gubernatorial candidates.

Of the six major candidates, only one — Democrat Bill Bradbury — had voted in every possible election since 1994.

Although we think candidates’ voting records should be reported, we caution voters against making too much of the matter.

In some cases that’s true.

But certainly not in every case.

And voters themselves are also guilty of sloth if they focus on voting records but ignore other, more meaningful measures such as the candidates’ positions on important issues and, in the case of incumbents or former officials, their legislative or executive accomplishments.

Consider as an example John Kitzhaber, the former Democratic governor who’s challenging Bradbury for his party’s nomination.

Kitzhaber missed five of the past 13 elections. That statistic probably disappoints Kitzhaber’s supporters.

But do his wasted ballots invalidate his efforts to create the Oregon Health Plan?

More to the point, which of those is more relevant to Kitzhaber’s qualifications to serve as our governor?