I was born into a conservative family with a racist uncle and a majority of closed-minded relatives, so I am relieved to have the parents I do. 

My parents raised me to think for myself and challenge my judgments, which have been two of the most important things I’ve learned in life. 

I was never the best of sons, causing more trouble than not and breaking the rules more often than abiding by them, but I took those lessons to heart and put them to practice when I could.

With this election being my first, I challenged myself to stay informed so I could vote for the candidate I believed would serve the country the best – but I was unsure where to begin.

As a college student, I am concerned about the future and constantly worrying about the job market for graduates. I knew that in order to increase my chances of getting a job, I needed a president who respects market forces.

Unsure how either candidate would improve the market, I sought answers. 

But before diving into the political scene, I defined exactly what I was looking for out of the next president. 

I decided the candidate to win my vote would be the one who limits price controls, gives states the flexibility they need and recognizes the danger of taxes only to the rich – because a benefit distributed equally should be paid for equally, otherwise the concern for price is lost.  

When it comes to fixing the economy, conventional wisdom would point to the conservative. But when Obama took office the market was spiraling down. He has since turned it around, so I didn’t fall for the commonwealth. 

In fact, both candidates have eerily similar plans, and it proved difficult to find the difference. In the end, though, the difference lies in funding, the limit of government control and, of course, taxes.

The president’s plan is to implement more direct government employment at higher wages, more government contracting to enforce the higher wages and more government aid for college students to raise their average salaries. 

But financial aid is more of a trap than a solution. It works by ensuring students are able to afford college, but it does not ensure that students will graduate. If the recipient drops out of school, he or she must begin paying back the loan immediately. 

But how can they when jobs are scarce? Isn’t the whole purpose of financial aid is to increase job opportunities? 

There’s still a possibility I won’t graduate. I hope that isn’t the case, but if it were, I would need a job more than ever.  

Republican candidate Mitt Romney plans to reduce income taxes by 20 percent to increase consumer spending. A secondary effect will be the promotion of small businesses, and more businesses means more jobs. 

Romney’s plan addresses the issue indirectly. As a result, more jobs will be available whether a person holds a degree or not.

Moreover, in his book “No Apology,” Romney addresses his actions to handle education policy after becoming the governor of Massachusetts. He displays the ability to consume and synthesize information, suggesting he has the capacity to be the leader this country needs, and unlike any trite Republican we don’t need.

This is why Mitt Romney won my vote: The future he has planned is a future in which I see myself better off in four years.