Decentralized networks tend to attract the liberty-minded; people who desire self-sufficiency and independence, not just in their actions, but in their thoughts. They don't want their behaviors to be guided and manipulated for social or political advantage, marketing and profit. While they don't object to those systems in principle, they don't want to be pawns in the systems as others have constructed them. That has a huge cross-section with the homesteading and permaculture movements, which are largely about empowering people on the individual level.
At this stage, I think you'll find most people involved here (in what are still the early days of the community) are by their nature very sympathetic to these ideas, even if they aren't knowledgeable in those specific manifestations of the ideal.
The classical "homesteaders" (as most people understand the term) were refugees and pioneers, who put aside the comforts of "civilized" society and foraged a new way of life for themselves. Though everyone here comes from differing backgrounds, with different ideals, we all share that common trait. This platform is a new frontier, and we are all digital homesteaders. We're not cutting ties with a geographic location or political structure as our ancestors did. We're cutting ties to Facebook, Google and propagandized TV News. We've chosen to leave that behind and head out into the savage wilderness of the blockchain beta to build a new home for ourselves.
All the witnesses pay some acknowledgement to this fact. It's what drew them here, just as it did you or I. So I wouldn't worry too much about this. They are not content curators.
The more compelling trait to select for is their ability to run a node, understand crypto-markets, and they should be prolific content creators themselves. If they lack those qualities, regardless of their intention or interests, philosophies, etc, they will stifle the growth of the platform.
Selecting for a common ideology is good from an emotional perspective, it makes you feel confident in your votes. But they should ideally have no apparent philosophies, hobbies, political leanings, or other potential biases. They just need to be technically competent in the systems of administration. As long as that remains true, they will be incentivized to facilitate the exchange of ideas between members of the platform and so create an ecosystem where the people you're looking for can thrive.
I won't presume to tell you who to vote for, but I will say this; Look first at their technical qualification. If within that subset of adept users, you find someone you feel an affinity towards, by all means, vote for them, but be sure they can do the job first. The goal of voting is not to impart an ideology or culture within the platform, but rather to preserve a platform designed to allow all ideas to be equitably shared.
Well damn. That was one hell of a comment. Thank you @arkryal! Not sure if you took it the wrong way but I am not looking for you to tell me who to vote for or in the method that I "should" vote. Although I do agree on most of your theology on voting for a witness. I only know of the top 50 witness list. So I was reaching out to my followers to see if they knew others I could look into.
If you have anyone you would recommend me looking into that would be much appreciated. Thank you!