The obvious answer is that both occur every year in early November, with the time change officially happening early Sunday morning and the elections taking place on Tuesday.

But I have been thinking about another element where I see some ties between the two events:

Is the easy way better?

The debate over the value of daylight saving time has existed as long as the idea has been around, since studies indicate that the direct energy benefits are negligible at best and a net negative at worst.

And it can be so frustrating to have to change the clock every fall and spring — not the physical clocks as much any more since many change automatically but the body clock isn’t so simple to adjust.

So why not just stay on either standard time or daylight time, as has been so often suggested and even requested through legislation?

It would be easier, right?

But I don’t think it would be better.

Do we really want it to start getting light at 4:30 a.m. in June, as would happen with year-round standard time?

Do we want the sun to not come up until nearly 8 a.m. in December, as would be the case with year-round daylight time?

Even if you answered yes to either or both of those questions, I think many underestimate the value of being forced to adapt to change.

Change will happen in life and it’s often not easy. Pushing yourself to adapt quickly and effectively to something as relatively innocuous as an hour time difference could certainly be viewed as beneficial.

Not only does that have direct implications for anyone who wants to travel (going east or west a few hundred miles will also result in you having to change the clock as you cross into different time zones) but it also can be a nice foundation to build on for other life changes.

If you know you are strong enough to handle changing your body clock an hour twice a year, you can tackle other challenging changes as well, right?

Maybe we just need to better recognize the positives that come with doing something that’s harder.

So what does this have to do elections?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how some elections are portrayed as being easier if you just pick up sides.

The way some candidates choose to be grouped together reminds me of choosing up teams for a pickup game of basketball and how you have to be on one side or the other.

It could be viewed as having to get a combo off a restaurant menu when you are fully capable (and better off) choosing from the a la carte section because that’s a better way to get what you really want.

This has been a manipulative tactic in national politics for years as both conservatives and liberals try to portray anyone who doesn’t fully support their ideas as a traitor or someone who is actually playing for the other “team.” If you think for a moment, you can probably come up with a number of senators and representatives who have been painted that way, regardless of how liberal or conservative they actually are.

I find it sad to see how it appears to be emerging more and more in local elections as well, as candidates band together in “teams” of their own.

But it’s easier, right?

All I have to do is pick a team and then I don’t have to delve into the important issues or identify who is better qualified for the position they are running for.

Once again, though, I don’t think that’s a better approach.

I think every individual should be considered on their own merits, not on what “team” they are on. Just because other candidates, political parties or other organizations support a certain candidate doesn’t mean I will — or that I should.

My vote is mine to use to the best of my ability. Just like everyone else, I can share my opinions and perhaps they will provide insight for others who are making their own decisions — but perhaps they won’t because others have completely different priorities than I do.

If I think Candidate A who is a part of “Team B” and Candidate C who is aligned with “Team D” are going to do the best job, I have absolutely no problem voting for them. To me, their “team” affiliations shouldn’t be the determining factor.

Does it take more effort to figure it out? Absolutely.

But I believe if enough residents go through that process, our communities will be the beneficiaries because they will have good people with a variety of perspectives to represent them in city government.

It can be awfully tempting to take the easy ways in life but it’s usually the harder paths that make us grow stronger and provide better understanding.

That can definitely make them worth it.

Jared Lloyd is the managing editor of the Daily Herald.