Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Brother Rick

Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Recommended Posts


Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?

Depending on what State one is in, there are options like the Green Party or Libertarian Party. Oftentimes some offshoot will also run in some States. There is also the option to vote for no one in a particular category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's where I disagree with you. If you really believe that Romney would make the best president out of all the ones available, then I believe you should vote for him in the primary. To do any less would be to compromise your own convictions. This is the thought pattern and the reason the Republican Party keeps being represented by liberals.

First of all, I don't like Romney. I actually don't think he'd make the best President out of the Republican contenders. He'd be better than Paul or Santorum, but not Gingrich, IMO. I believe Gingrich 1) would make the best President and 2)is the most electable against Obama. So, I really don't have any conundrums this time.


Here's the deal, when you claim that a candidate has "no shot" of beating Obama, you're basing that off of your own understanding and preconceptions. I'm not trying to be harsh, you know I like you, but when people start talking that way they start removing God from the picture. You're leaning on your own understanding, and not voting for the guy who you think would make the better president.

Rick, you're not being harsh. I like a friendly, frank discussion, and I'm pretty hard to offend. ;) I think you're that way, too. I guess I would have to say that everything I am (and you are) taking into consideration is from "my own (and your own) understanding" since I can't see into the hearts of the men who are running. God can do whatever He pleases--I completely acknowledge that. But I'm responsible to weigh the evidence I see with my eyes and hear with my ears. I don't have any secret insight into either 1) the real character of a man or 2) his electability. Since that is true, I have to go by what I think is right based on my perceptions. Such is true about any area of my life. (I'm certainly not downplaying the importance of prayer, faith, etc.)

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I would not vote for a person ONLY because I feel he's the most electable...but that factor does play heavily into my voting decision. For example, in this primary election...
**Santorum's a great guy; all of the "homeschooly" people around here are endorsing him. Do I think his character is probably the very best of all of the men who are running? Yep. But I don't think he would make a good President; he would not be an effective leader. And he's IMO not electable.
**Do I think Romney would be an effective leader? Is he smart? Yep. But I don't like his policies, and I don't trust him as much as I trust someone like Newt. I can't be sure about his character, b/c he comes across as plastic and fake. Is he electable? I don't think he's AS electable as Newt. (But I could be completely wrong...I know that!)
**Newt's "character grade" isn't that great...except for the fact that he has admitted mistakes and shown remorse and humility about his failings. That counts for something, especially in politics. Newt is IMO the most electable one. Do I like everything he has done policy-wise? Nope, but I like it a lot better than I do Romney's record.

See...this is the kind of thought process I go through. It's not JUST "character" or "electability," "past performance," or "who has the best leadership skills." It's a combination of these traits and more. I guess I could sum up by saying that I would NOT vote for someone ONLY because I think he's electable, and I would NOT vote for someone who IMO is not AT ALL electable. There's middle ground here, at least in this particular primary election. Now, if there were only one Republican candidate who stood any kind of chance against Obama, he would get my vote, hands down. Not to vote for him would be to vote for the greater evil.


Over and over again people keep saying Ron Paul doesn't have a shot, and yet he's making a strong showing. In spite of everything that everyone is saying, he's still a contender. I wonder where he'd be if people voted based upon who they thought was right for the job and not who they thought would win. If someone contends in the primary and wins the GOP nod, anything can happen.

Ron Paul would be my last choice for a Republican President. He is nowhere on my radar. The only time I'd cast a vote for him is if/when he's running against Obama. He fails too many of my tests. Character? Probably okay--I have no idea. Presidential material? Not on your life. Rhetoric? Way too whiny. Good leader? Can't see that happening. Electable? Not at all.


If we're basing our decisions off Scriptural principles, then it is clear that we do the best with what we can. But it is also clear that faith, prayer, and trust in what God can do should also enter the picture. Those latter principles are never more important for a Christian voter than during the primary, because it is at that time we can really make our voice heard.

Maybe you can, Rick. (Where do you live?) By the time we vote, just about everyone has been weeded out except the obvious front runner. We still vote since it's our duty, but I don't feel like my voice is heard at all during primary elections. I agree about faith, prayer, and trust in God.

The "electability" argument is based entirely on perception, which is as unstable as water. Israel made their choice for Saul based upon electability, not on who he was, his heart, or his ability to lead. I know the other three aren't David, but the principle remains the same: pick the best available for the job based upon their ability to do the job, not their ability to get the job. Leave the getting of the job to God.

Saul was chosen by God through Samuel, not Israel, right? I'm not sure how Saul fits into the picture, since he wasn't "elected" or running against anyone else. That was a totally different situation...and Saul was actually a good guy there at the beginning of his reign.
About perception...you're right--things can flip-flop overnight, mainly because the American public are as dumb as sheep most of the time...but polls do mean something. If someone scores consistently low in the polls (like over years of time), he's not electable, period. I would say that I do choose whom I vote for based on their ability to do the job...but electability does figure in, too. How can it not? It does absolutely no good to put a Republican on the ticket who has no chance of winning (I'm not talking "iffy," but NO chance). Putting a Paul or Santorum on the ticket is handing the win to the greater evil. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember that Gingrich, during his time in congress, voted most often like a big government Democrat? Gingrich supported all the globalization efforts, including NAFTA and GATT. Newt has long supported the UN. Newt talked up conservative principles, made the contract with America, and then caved or compromised it all away. This, in part, is why he was forced to resign. There is a reason that many who have actually worked with Newt speak out against the idea he could be a good president.

On a number of social issues, including immigration, Newt holds virtually the same position as the likes of Obama and Clinton.

Republicans have wrongly built up the idea that Newt forced President Clinton to the center, when it's more realistic to say Clinton got his way using Newt. Newt didn't stand firm on any of the conservative ideas he said he would stand upon. Instead, Newt either caved outright or compromised away the conservative foundations in order to make compromises with President Clinton.

It's also interesting to consider that Newt feels justified in having spoke out against President Clinton for having an adulterous affair while Newt himself was having an adulterous affair (while his wife was gravely ill) at the same time. Newt justifies this by saying President Clinton lied about his affair, while Newt didn't (he was keeping it a secret and latter admited to it after he decided to divorce his ill wife and marry his mistress).

The unconstitutional nationalization of various crimes and other matters put forth in the "crime bill" during Clinton's presidency was the total result of Newt pushing it into being. The bill had been defeated when Clinton first brought it out. Then Newt resurrected the liberal-socialist bill, pushed it through congress and President Clinton signed it into law.

Newt Gingrich has a very long history of saying one thing and doing another. This is true in his political and personal dealings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good things to think about, John. He's still the best of the lot, IMO, when you take everything into consideration. He's the "lesser evil" compared to any of the other candidates.

Voting for a Santorum candidacy is the same as voting for the greater evil. Same with Paul. Neither of these guys could beat Obama.

Left with Romney and Newt, Newt's the lesser of the evils.

My personal opinion is that Obama's going to win no matter who the Republican candidate is. But that doesn't mean I don't do my duty in voting for the guy who has the best chance at beating him (taking things other than electability into the equation as well, of course). To me, Newt's the clear choice, but of course not everyone agrees with that.

Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So you like the charactor of a man who supports the murder of babies worldwide?

You like tax policies designed to cripple businesses and redistribute wealth?

You like a health care policy that is unconstitutional, forces folks to pay for the unhealthy choices of others, places government in control of health issues and leads to a downgrading of American healthcare?

You support international policy based upon America being "the big bad" that Obama constantly apologizes for, where policy is constantly blowing in the wind?

You supporth the Obama social issues of mass baby murder, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, ignoring the Constitution, promoting class warfare, playing the race card, the downgrading of American lifestyle to the lowest common denominator?


I am truly appauled by the fact that supposed "value voters" of South Carolina overwhelmingly voted for Gingrich over Romney. How did this happen? I would not vote for Gingrich for anything. He is a serial adulterer....not only that, but he cheated on 2 wives AFTER they got sick, and then married his mistress. His own party, when he was speaker of the house sanctioned him for ethics violations. How could anyone trust him with the office of the President? All the while, he hounded Bill Clinton for his sexual escapades, speaks out for the sanctity of marriage, and is pandering to the value voters. Can you say hypocrite?

Like I said, if it comes down go Gingrich or Obama, I'm voting for Obama all the way. Not only will I vote for Obama, but I'll actively campaign for him and try to convince others to vote for him. Gingrich may have repented and may be a different man now. I sure hope he is, but there are too many skeletons in his closet. If he bails on two wives when things get tough, how will he react under pressure as President? Even if he has repented and has come clean and is living a morally pure life now, given that background and knowing his areas of weakness, I would not trust him as President at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I am truly appauled by the fact that supposed "value voters" of South Carolina overwhelmingly voted for Gingrich over Romney. How did this happen? I would not vote for Gingrich for anything. He is a serial adulterer....not only that, but he cheated on 2 wives AFTER they got sick, and then married his mistress. His own party, when he was speaker of the house sanctioned him for ethics violations. How could anyone trust him with the office of the President? All the while, he hounded Bill Clinton for his sexual escapades, speaks out for the sanctity of marriage, and is pandering to the value voters. Can you say hypocrite?

Like I said, if it comes down go Gingrich or Obama, I'm voting for Obama all the way. Not only will I vote for Obama, but I'll actively campaign for him and try to convince others to vote for him. Gingrich may have repented and may be a different man now. I sure hope he is, but there are too many skeletons in his closet. If he bails on two wives when things get tough, how will he react under pressure as President? Even if he has repented and has come clean and is living a morally pure life now, given that background and knowing his areas of weakness, I would not trust him as President at all.


You didn't have to search long or hard to puppet those comments. You may want to reply to the folks where you found it and tell them to get a new strategy, this one isn't working.

I don't believe its a mystery you lean to the far left on issues of Christian ethics. However, we're electing a person to a secular position of leadership for our nation. I don't understand how Newt's past would concern you based on your position in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



You didn't have to search long or hard to puppet those comments. You may want to reply to the folks where you found it and tell them to get a new strategy, this one isn't working.

I don't believe its a mystery you lean to the far left on issues of Christian ethics. However, we're electing a person to a secular position of leadership for our nation. I don't understand how Newt's past would concern you based on your position in the past.


His past is of great concern. Anthony Weiner was forced to resign for cheating on his wife, and rightfully so. Gingrich is no different. His personal life is a mess, and shows weakness. If he cannot be trusted in very difficult and trying times with his family, then how can he be trusted to bear difficult times in this nation? He has been a hypocrite. The same as a State Senator of mine was who preached family values and then left his wife and married his secretary. I don't care so much about politics as I do character.

In the Republican primary, I support Mitt Romney, and he is a candidate I could vote for. I also think he has a strong shot at beating Obama in the general election. Newt Gingrich has little to no shot, in my opinion. I cannot support him, and if I cannot get behind him, I know that many other people will have the same problem.

Still, I am baffled about how value voters could have elected him in South Carolina. I am truly astonished by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good things to think about, John. He's still the best of the lot, IMO, when you take everything into consideration. He's the "lesser evil" compared to any of the other candidates.

Voting for a Santorum candidacy is the same as voting for the greater evil. Same with Paul. Neither of these guys could beat Obama.

Left with Romney and Newt, Newt's the lesser of the evils.

My personal opinion is that Obama's going to win no matter who the Republican candidate is. But that doesn't mean I don't do my duty in voting for the guy who has the best chance at beating him (taking things other than electability into the equation as well, of course). To me, Newt's the clear choice, but of course not everyone agrees with that.

Remember everyone said Reagan couldn't win but he managed to pull off two landslide victories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I am truly appauled by the fact that supposed "value voters" of South Carolina overwhelmingly voted for Gingrich over Romney. How did this happen? I would not vote for Gingrich for anything. He is a serial adulterer....not only that, but he cheated on 2 wives AFTER they got sick, and then married his mistress. His own party, when he was speaker of the house sanctioned him for ethics violations. How could anyone trust him with the office of the President? All the while, he hounded Bill Clinton for his sexual escapades, speaks out for the sanctity of marriage, and is pandering to the value voters. Can you say hypocrite?

Like I said, if it comes down go Gingrich or Obama, I'm voting for Obama all the way. Not only will I vote for Obama, but I'll actively campaign for him and try to convince others to vote for him. Gingrich may have repented and may be a different man now. I sure hope he is, but there are too many skeletons in his closet. If he bails on two wives when things get tough, how will he react under pressure as President? Even if he has repented and has come clean and is living a morally pure life now, given that background and knowing his areas of weakness, I would not trust him as President at all.

I didn't vote for Gingrich.

It's no surprise that you would toss out Scripture in order to vote for someone who is so anti-christian. While I don't see voting for Gingrich as a good thing, from a biblical perspective, voting for and campaigning for Obama would be an abomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



His past is of great concern. Anthony Weiner was forced to resign for cheating on his wife, and rightfully so. Gingrich is no different. His personal life is a mess, and shows weakness. If he cannot be trusted in very difficult and trying times with his family, then how can he be trusted to bear difficult times in this nation? He has been a hypocrite. The same as a State Senator of mine was who preached family values and then left his wife and married his secretary. I don't care so much about politics as I do character.

In the Republican primary, I support Mitt Romney, and he is a candidate I could vote for. I also think he has a strong shot at beating Obama in the general election. Newt Gingrich has little to no shot, in my opinion. I cannot support him, and if I cannot get behind him, I know that many other people will have the same problem.

Still, I am baffled about how value voters could have elected him in South Carolina. I am truly astonished by that.

Who said "values voters" voted for Newt? No on outside the mainstream media which serves as a liberal propaganda machine. The fact is, Santorum's 17% was a result of strong "values voters" support.

Anthony Weiner was not forced to resign for cheating on his wife, it was the scandal and his poor handling of the scandal aspects that brought about his resignation. Had he "only" cheated on his wife, that would have been ignored.

I absolutely agree one should be concerned about supporting a man who is a serial adulterer of the most dispicable sort. Not only that, Newt's idea of taking responsibility for his "mistakes" leaves a lot to be desired and shows no real signs sincerity.

That said, there is absolutely no biblical justification for voting for a man who supports the murder of babies around the world, or any of his other many unbiblical positions which are destroyers of nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



But Reagan was an actor. and he managed to act his part well.

That was one of the reasons given for Reagan being unable to win, even though Reagan had already served terms as governor of California.

Didn't you love the days of Reagan and Thatcher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Reagan...I think that's why a lot of people like Newt. Reagan was, above all, the "Great Communicator." He connected with people, no doubt due to his training as a screen actor. Like Reagan, Newt connects with the American people better than any of the other candidates IMO. Compared to Gingrich (in this area) Romney is plastic, Santorum is a nervous schoolboy, and Paul is a muppet. Gingrich talks plainly, powerfully, and succinctly, in terms we can all understand. In this way, he's just like Reagan was.

Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Reagan...I think that's why a lot of people like Newt. Reagan was, above all, the "Great Communicator." He connected with people, no doubt due to his training as a screen actor. Like Reagan, Newt connects with the American people better than any of the other candidates IMO. Compared to Gingrich (in this area) Romney is plastic, Santorum is a nervous schoolboy, and Paul is a muppet. Gingrich talks plainly, powerfully, and succinctly, in terms we can all understand. In this way, he's just like Reagan was.

Newt is skilled at speaking, but he tends to be far more negative and often comes off as angry, while Reagan most often appeared to be positive and upbeat.

While Newt's speaking is much more straightforward, he often makes bad analogies and often says things in a bad manner which turn many people off and his attempts to correct them tend to go bad. Many are turned off by what they see as an arrogant attitude coming from Newt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just skimmed this but, I want to say that I don't like the media hype on Romney, Newt is not a good example ,Ron Paul things he is a messiah because he predicted a financial crisis for three decades, the only one I can't vomit about is Rich Santorum. I do like some things about Obama but, I don't like Obama wanting to push abortion and birth control and something, so this year, I am not sure what the Lord is leading me to do but, I am laying low of the media and I am laying low on some political websites, I had to leave almost all of the political stuff I was in on facebook because I was making myself feel sick and not better and I don't have time this year to worry about political issues, what i mean by that is that we are closing on a house in a few weeks, then we will be moving in very early spring and by the time we are settled in and change our stuff, it will be almost to the general elections, so what I am saying is I am praying this year that God protects this country and those that are able to vote , vote with their best Christian views and beliefs and values so we can protect this country from getting more and more worse, but whomeever wins the elections this November it will be the same thing attacking each side and not getting nothing done in D.C. This is not a lash out like I did before , its my actual feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who say we should never vote for the lesser of two evils, Would you vote for a man who had an affair while in office and then gave orders to end her husband to the front line so he would be killed? if not you would not vote for a man like David, a man after God's own heart. Or perhaps a man with 700 wives and 300 more women on the side? Then you would not vote for Solomon, the man God had build the temple in Jerusalem. You see if we are not willing to vote for imperfect men, we would not approve of the men God put into place. Perhap if a man who was righteous enough to be a pastor was running we could vote for him, or would we critisize him for not preaching the gospel instead!!! As to Jesus not doing anything in politics, his entire reason for coming would have been undermind if he had, as he would have had to overthrow the roman empire, and become king. Then he would not have been crusified. He WILL come again one day and set up a kingdom. Now tell me how will me voting for a man that is not perfect undermine my work here on this earth? If I feel led (which I do not) to be president, how would that destroy my work for Christ? If I was led to do so it might be that God would use it to spread the Gospel through freedom. Another thought,(I have mentioned this before) Christ did not have a home (owned or rented). He traveled from town to town preaching. Those who feel that since Jesus did nothing political, neither should we need to move out of their homes (if they own they need to sell), quit trying to be conected to this old world, and travel preaching. Some may say "I do preach" but still have a home. Christ Never Had A Home, so neither should you!!!



Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

My citizenship is in heaven, not this world.

1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Even God’s Word lets everyone know its OK to have a house, food, clothing, yet some ignore this, & use it as an attack.

Try again.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

And

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Oh, you will never change a heart with politics, only make it harder, yet someone that heart the Gospel, might under go a heart change.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

That my friend, is what every saved person is ordained to do by Jesus. His kingdom is not of this world, & the work He has given His people to do, is not of this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?


I honestly think the majority of people over here vote for the one that they think will help their pocketbook the most, & I include many Christians in that group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our parlimentary elections, we often have a number of minority candidates. Some withh be local pressure groups, campaigning against a new road, airport, resevoir or w.h.y. Others are only stand to excercise their right to stand, and will give some strange reason. Others like the Monster Raving Looney Party stand for some reason of which I am not sure. They always get some votes, some of them quite a lot of votes, so a lot of people don't just vote for their pocketbooks. Some vote for them as a protest vote.

If I wanted to stand for parliament, I would have to send in a nomination form signed by 10 sponsors. I would also have to pay a £500.00 deposit, which will be forfeited it I did not get 5% of the votes. Most of the minorities don't get 5% so lose their deposit. Sometimes one of the major party candidates does not get 5%. I would also be able to send one election communication to each elector in the constituancy, post free.

I can't think why I have not done it before. Perhaps it is that £500.00?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our parlimentary elections, we often have a number of minority candidates. Some withh be local pressure groups, campaigning against a new road, airport, resevoir or w.h.y. Others are only stand to excercise their right to stand, and will give some strange reason. Others like the Monster Raving Looney Party stand for some reason of which I am not sure. They always get some votes, some of them quite a lot of votes, so a lot of people don't just vote for their pocketbooks. Some vote for them as a protest vote.

If I wanted to stand for parliament, I would have to send in a nomination form signed by 10 sponsors. I would also have to pay a £500.00 deposit, which will be forfeited it I did not get 5% of the votes. Most of the minorities don't get 5% so lose their deposit. Sometimes one of the major party candidates does not get 5%. I would also be able to send one election communication to each elector in the constituancy, post free.

I can't think why I have not done it before. Perhaps it is that £500.00?


Of course i have no idea why people vote the way they do in your country for I know very little about your people & your country.

Yet I do know that many Christians in my area vote for the party that they think will help their pocketbooks the most, & they will tell you this. And of course a conversation on politics with them is usually more heated than one on the Bible. I suppose that is because politics is so much about their pocketbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...