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

[JerryNumbers]

Guys, let's be consistent. If X candidate is to be the POTUS, then our sovereign God will cause him to win in the primary. No "psychics" (as you call them) can thwart God's will, right? In the meantime, "electability" will continue to figure into my vote for the Republican candidate. (See my previous comments for the proper context of that remark.)

And I do agree with the cliff part, John. None of the Republican candidates--no politicians or Presidents--have the power to turn our country around. We are headed over the cliff no matter what, apart from all of that...because the problems with America are spiritual, not political. None of the candidates have the power to turn our country around politically, either, IMO. The state of Washington is such that any positive changes would be slow in coming and easily overturned by future leadership. Yep, we're headed over the cliff no matter what. Good thing my home's not on this earth!

May I ask a couple of questions? If you believe that, why vote? Why not just pray about this election that God's will be done?

[JerryNumbers]

Look at the Republican Supreme Court Justices who have supported abortion and other liberal things.

Some seem to forget that the Courts are not to make law and the congress has balance check power over the Supreme Court. Congress could have passed a law at any time since Roe v Wade which outlawed abortion and stripped the courts of review power over that law. That's one of the powers of congress.

John, seems a time has come again to inject this into this topic for them, 'Conservative Republicans' are only 'Worldly Conservative,' & not even 'Christian Liberal,' let along 'Christian Conservative.'

[Annie]

May I ask a couple of questions? If you believe that, why vote? Why not just pray about this election that God's will be done?

If you believe that God will provide for your needs, then why do you work? If you believe that God will protect you, then why do you try to drive safely?The answer to those questions is the same as the answer to this one. The sovereignty of God does not negate the duty of men to act in obedience. Sometimes, in His sovereignty, God USES the actions of men to accomplish His will, and sometimes He works His will IN SPITE OF the actions of men.

[1Timothy115]

Look at the Republican Supreme Court Justices who have supported abortion and other liberal things.

Some seem to forget that the Courts are not to make law and the congress has balance check power over the Supreme Court. Congress could have passed a law at any time since Roe v Wade which outlawed abortion and stripped the courts of review power over that law. That's one of the powers of congress.

John, the argument below is not specifically toward you but, to the question your comment calls to mind. The below is to convince others of another point of view, if that were possible in an online room of Baptisits.

We have to take actions as well as pray. The only action we can take besides assisting someone's campaign is to vote.

Since it is doubtful the legislature will change many if any laws, I want the closest thing to a conservative judicial bench as I can possibly get. I know Reagan's choices have not always sided with conservatism but none of the others have either. Here they are and who appointed them...


Scalia, Antonin Born 1936– Term 1986–present Apptd by Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony Born 1936– Term 1988–present Apptd by Reagan
Thomas, Clarence Born 1948– Term 1991–present Apptd by Bush, G. H. W.
Goldberg, Ruth Born 1933– Term 1993–present Apptd by Clinton
Breyer, Stephen Born 1938– Term 1994–present Apptd by Clinton
John G. Roberts† Born 1955– Term 2005–present Apptd by Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel Born 1950– Term 2006–present Apptd by Bush, G. W.
Sotomayor, Sonia Born 1954– Term 2009–present Apptd by Obama
Kagan, Elena Born 1960– Term 2010–present Apptd by Obama

I said it before, I don't want Obama appointing any more of them. I do believe that if God allows Obama to be re-elected and allows him to appoint other judges that it is his will and we deserve the results. I think the key in voting is to turn from our wicked ways; in voting it means toward the more God honoring individual for president.


2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

How wicked a judiciary are you willing to allow?

[Brother Rick]

The best man standing right now to run our country is Ron Paul. He's the only one who predicted how we would get here blow-by-blow back in 2002, and he's the only one I believe who has the courage and principles to do what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. While I can vote for him, I will. My primary vote will be for him because I support the message of freedom and I hold dear the Constitution.

Electability is a whim of masses that changes with the wind. I intend to vote upon principles, not a whim.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[1Timothy115]

The best man standing right now to run our country is Ron Paul. He's the only one who predicted how we would get here blow-by-blow back in 2002, and he's the only one I believe who has the courage and principles to do what needs to be done to get us out of this mess. While I can vote for him, I will. My primary vote will be for him because I support the message of freedom and I hold dear the Constitution.

Electability is a whim of masses that changes with the wind. I intend to vote upon principles, not a whim.

If he is available on "super" Tuesday for Ohio's primary he will get my vote. I will lose my independent status but, I believe it's too important.

[Annie]

I have a question for those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in the primary vote...Why would you vote for any of the Republican candidates on the ticket? Surely you know someone with better character and policies than all of the "official" candidates...Why not write his/her name in? Why restrict yourself to voting for someone who does not reflect your values and/or policy preferences in some way? If "voting for the best man" is your approach, why vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

[John81]

I have a question for those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in the primary vote...Why would you vote for any of the Republican candidates on the ticket? Surely you know someone with better character and policies than all of the "official" candidates...Why not write his/her name in? Why restrict yourself to voting for someone who does not reflect your values and/or policy preferences in some way? If "voting for the best man" is your approach, why vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Not all states allow write-ins.

There is also the option to vote for "none of the above".

[Annie]

Not all states allow write-ins.

There is also the option to vote for "none of the above".

So, I guess my follow-up question would be this: Will those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in your primary vote choose one of the above options (writing in or choosing "none of the above")? If not, why not? How does this idea play into the "lesser of two evils" concept? I'd love to hear from John and Rick especially on this. Edited February 3, 2012 by Annie

[swathdiver]

Good Morning folks! Did I miss the talk on separation? Why would we ever consider voting for an unsaved person, a heathen? Neither Romney, nor Gingrich or Santorum has made repentence toward God and put his faith in Jesus Christ. Ron Paul's testimony is questionable and very shallow at best.

Romans 16:17 - "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

[HappyChristian]

Well, we would consider voting for an unsaved person because the Constitution is to be our guide as the law of the land. I'd much rather see an unsaved person who will follow the Constitution than a saved person (remember Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter...both supposedly "saved" Baptists by their own profession) who will not. We are not voting on a pastor of a church, nor even on church membership. It's an entire different thing.

That said, you cannot know that none of these men haven't "made repentance" toward God. Granted, the Mormon and Catholic beliefs of Romney and Santorum pretty well show us that - but I do know some Mormons from my childhood who got saved as children, but their parents kept them in the Mormon belief and so that is what they are today (not saying Mitt is like that...just saying). I also know Catholics who got saved, but couldn't pull away from Catholicism. I know, people will say they weren't truly saved, but I personally will leave that up to the Lord. Gingrich was Southern Baptist. So, there is a good chance that he heard the truth. And although he converted to Catholicism (yes, dumb choice, I agree), he does claim to have sought forgiveness from the Lord for his sins. None of them are shining examples of any kind of Christianity. But, again: we aren't voting for a pastor. And there will never be a candidate, even if he/she is a Christian, with whom every Christian will agree.

Romans 16:17 is written for admonition within the church.

I won't vote for Ron Paul, Rick, for one very basic reason: he is into all of the crazy loon ideas that blame American government for everything. Yes, the government is corrupt in many ways. But I do not believe that the government was behind 9/11. Nor do I believe Israel was. RPaul does.

[Brother Rick]

The "electability" argument is a fallacy on many levels:

1. Electability changes with the wind. Newt is a perfect example of this. One day he's bogging in the polls, the next day he is kicking people's heads into the ground and taking names. One speech, one debate, one blogger, one story, one commercial, one book, even one photo can rapidly swing the mood of voters and change everything. To base your vote on something that can change so quickly is ridiculous. I really should haven't to write anymore, but I will.

2. The goal is not to win; it's to win on sound principles. If all we're trying to do is win, then why don't we just have a one-party system that way we win every time. Republicans keep sending "electable" liberals out of the John McCain and Bob Dole "big tent" and they keep getting thumped by the other side. People are energized by voting for someone so much more than they are by voting against someone. This is why the “unelectable” Ronald Regan won in a landslide.

3. The electability argument guts a party of its true values. We keep sending liberals because we think they have a better shot of winning, and if they do in fact win we wind up being represented by liberals. Then the party we think is supposed to hold our values is filled with liberals that we voted for, and we're stuck voting for them election after election. Before you know it, instead of having a conservative party we have a liberal party going against a really liberal party. The voters aren't liberal, they're just chicken.

4. "Electability" in of itself is a fallacy, because it usually involves voting for a guy who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Liberal Republicans are not electable. The only reason G.W. won was because he talked like a conservative and the same thing for his dad. Ronald Regan preached conservatism and destroyed the opposition.

Next point...


Newt and Mitt are not really that electable.

Why even bother with the argument of electability when these are the two guys you have to point to. Newt is an incompetent and arrogant blowhard who has zipper problems. He's the Clinton of the Republican party, only without the charm. He can't lead, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to fill one of Saddam's mass graves. Women hate him because of his infidelity, he's a proven failure in leadership, and somehow he's supposed to be electable? The only reason he has a shot right now is because Mitt is his toughest competition.

Mitt is a plastic rich guy that no one can relate to. He's like the guy at the party that tries to be funny and everyone just silently stares at him after he tells a joke. There is nothing remarkable about his personality, if he even happens to have one down deep. He's teleprompter dependent, and the only reason he's beating Newt is because he has nice hair and isn't a gluttonous blowhard, because Newt is a much better speaker than Mitt. And he's a liberal! He's proud of his Romneycare (something Obama himself could have given birth to) and he talks about how great the New Deal was and is a supporter of gay rights.

So the electability argument is a complete fallacy in of itself, and it is even more of a fallacy when you have to consider the two guys we are supposed to think are "electable."

Lastly....


Ron Paul is principled.

He's the only candidate that knows how we got here and called it blow-by-blow back in 2002.

He's the only one that has a foreign policy that Netanyahu asked for explicitly before Congress, that is, "we don't need America's help."

The most pro-life candidate.

He's by far the best on homeschooling.

He's by far the best on the economy.

He's been married to the same woman since the Stone Age.

He's a born again Christians who doesn't use his walk with the Lord as a gadget for politics.

I was talking to a Romney supporter the other day, and I asked her what she "liked" about Romney. Her answer was not anything that she actually liked about Romney, it was that she just thought he had the best shot to win. There's nothing to really like about the guy! In her defense of why she liked Romney, she said, "One thing about Ron Paul is that you know what he believes..." That really sums up Paul. You know what he believes, and he keeps his word to uphold the Constitution. The other guys are about as reliable as William Jefferson's Gingrich's sexual fidelity.

[Annie]

The "electability" argument is a fallacy on many levels:

1. Electability changes with the wind. Newt is a perfect example of this. One day he's bogging in the polls, the next day he is kicking people's heads into the ground and taking names. One speech, one debate, one blogger, one story, one commercial, one book, even one photo can rapidly swing the mood of voters and change everything. To base your vote on something that can change so quickly is ridiculous. I really should haven't to write anymore, but I will.

2. The goal is not to win; it's to win on sound principles. If all we're trying to do is win, then why don't we just have a one-party system that way we win every time. Republicans keep sending "electable" liberals out of the John McCain and Bob Dole "big tent" and they keep getting thumped by the other side. People are energized by voting for someone so much more than they are by voting against someone. This is why the “unelectable” Ronald Regan won in a landslide.

3. The electability argument guts a party of its true values. We keep sending liberals because we think they have a better shot of winning, and if they do in fact win we wind up being represented by liberals. Then the party we think is supposed to hold our values is filled with liberals that we voted for, and we're stuck voting for them election after election. Before you know it, instead of having a conservative party we have a liberal party going against a really liberal party. The voters aren't liberal, they're just chicken.

4. "Electability" in of itself is a fallacy, because it usually involves voting for a guy who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Liberal Republicans are not electable. The only reason G.W. won was because he talked like a conservative and the same thing for his dad. Ronald Regan preached conservatism and destroyed the opposition.

Next point...


Newt and Mitt are not really that electable.

Why even bother with the argument of electability when these are the two guys you have to point to. Newt is an incompetent and arrogant blowhard who has zipper problems. He's the Clinton of the Republican party, only without the charm. He can't lead, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to fill one of Saddam's mass graves. Women hate him because of his infidelity, he's a proven failure in leadership, and somehow he's supposed to be electable? The only reason he has a shot right now is because Mitt is his toughest competition.

Mitt is a plastic rich guy that no one can relate to. He's like the guy at the party that tries to be funny and everyone just silently stares at him after he tells a joke. There is nothing remarkable about his personality, if he even happens to have one down deep. He's teleprompter dependent, and the only reason he's beating Newt is because he has nice hair and isn't a gluttonous blowhard, because Newt is a much better speaker than Mitt. And he's a liberal! He's proud of his Romneycare (something Obama himself could have given birth to) and he talks about how great the New Deal was and is a supporter of gay rights.

So the electability argument is a complete fallacy in of itself, and it is even more of a fallacy when you have to consider the two guys we are supposed to think are "electable."

Lastly....


Ron Paul is principled.

He's the only candidate that knows how we got here and called it blow-by-blow back in 2002.

He's the only one that has a foreign policy that Netanyahu asked for explicitly before Congress, that is, "we don't need America's help."

The most pro-life candidate.

He's by far the best on homeschooling.

He's by far the best on the economy.

He's been married to the same woman since the Stone Age.

He's a born again Christians who doesn't use his walk with the Lord as a gadget for politics.

I was talking to a Romney supporter the other day, and I asked her what she "liked" about Romney. Her answer was not anything that she actually liked about Romney, it was that she just thought he had the best shot to win. There's nothing to really like about the guy! In her defense of why she liked Romney, she said, "One thing about Ron Paul is that you know what he believes..." That really sums up Paul. You know what he believes, and he keeps his word to uphold the Constitution. The other guys are about as reliable as William Jefferson's Gingrich's sexual fidelity.

So, you're dodging my question?

[Annie]

The "electability" argument is a fallacy on many levels:

1. Electability changes with the wind. Newt is a perfect example of this. One day he's bogging in the polls, the next day he is kicking people's heads into the ground and taking names. One speech, one debate, one blogger, one story, one commercial, one book, even one photo can rapidly swing the mood of voters and change everything. To base your vote on something that can change so quickly is ridiculous. I really should haven't to write anymore, but I will.

By "electability," I mean "someone who has a chance of winning in the general election against Obama"....not "whoever is winning in the polls on any given day." Romney and Gingrich would fare far better against Obama than Paul or Santorum any day. It's just a fact.

2. The goal is not to win; it's to win on sound principles. If all we're trying to do is win, then why don't we just have a one-party system that way we win every time. Republicans keep sending "electable" liberals out of the John McCain and Bob Dole "big tent" and they keep getting thumped by the other side. People are energized by voting for someone so much more than they are by voting against someone. This is why the “unelectable” Ronald Regan won in a landslide.

The goal is "the lesser of two evils," as you've observed in previous posts, Rick. Whose principles are sounder: Gingrich's or Obama's? Romney's or Obama's? Obviously, both Paul's and Santorum's principles beat Obama's by a mile, too, but put either of them up against Obama, and you're definitely NOT choosing "winning on sound principles." You're choosing losing. You're choosing the greater evil.

3. The electability argument guts a party of its true values. We keep sending liberals because we think they have a better shot of winning, and if they do in fact win we wind up being represented by liberals. Then the party we think is supposed to hold our values is filled with liberals that we voted for, and we're stuck voting for them election after election. Before you know it, instead of having a conservative party we have a liberal party going against a really liberal party. The voters aren't liberal, they're just chicken.

I don't think of Gingrich as "a liberal" at all. And I don't think "a liberal" has the best shot of beating Obama, anyway.

4. "Electability" in of itself is a fallacy, because it usually involves voting for a guy who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Liberal Republicans are not electable. The only reason G.W. won was because he talked like a conservative and the same thing for his dad. Ronald Regan preached conservatism and destroyed the opposition.

Rick, I wish we had someone like Reagan to nominate...but we don't. I do agree that liberal Republicans are not electable.

Newt and Mitt are not really that electable.

Why even bother with the argument of electability when these are the two guys you have to point to. Newt is an incompetent and arrogant blowhard who has zipper problems. He's the Clinton of the Republican party, only without the charm. He can't lead, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to fill one of Saddam's mass graves. Women hate him because of his infidelity, he's a proven failure in leadership, and somehow he's supposed to be electable? The only reason he has a shot right now is because Mitt is his toughest competition.

Mitt is a plastic rich guy that no one can relate to. He's like the guy at the party that tries to be funny and everyone just silently stares at him after he tells a joke. There is nothing remarkable about his personality, if he even happens to have one down deep. He's teleprompter dependent, and the only reason he's beating Newt is because he has nice hair and isn't a gluttonous blowhard, because Newt is a much better speaker than Mitt. And he's a liberal! He's proud of his Romneycare (something Obama himself could have given birth to) and he talks about how great the New Deal was and is a supporter of gay rights.

So the electability argument is a complete fallacy in of itself, and it is even more of a fallacy when you have to consider the two guys we are supposed to think are "electable."

Lastly....

Ron Paul is even less electable than these two guys. He has proven this fact over several years, not just "today's poll." He hasn't ever been able to convince more than a very small (albeit loyal) constituency that he would make an effective leader. His views on policy do not resonate with most conservatives, let alone with the rest of the American population. He would not fare well in the general election at all, because he is viewed as a weirdo. I'm not calling him a weirdo...just saying that he has not been able to overcome that perception. IMO, a vote for Paul in the primary is a vote for the greater evil. (Notice I said "IMO"...I'm no expert on politics. My opinions are worth just what you're paying for them.) :) Edited February 3, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

I have a question for those of you who believe that "electability" should not be considered as a factor in the primary vote...Why would you vote for any of the Republican candidates on the ticket? Surely you know someone with better character and policies than all of the "official" candidates...Why not write his/her name in? Why restrict yourself to voting for someone who does not reflect your values and/or policy preferences in some way? If "voting for the best man" is your approach, why vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

I do not vote for "the best man," or I'd write in Jesus Christ every time. I vote for the best candidate available. Unfortunately Jesus isn’t running or I’d certainly vote for him.