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

[Annie]

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.

I think you're still dodging. (As we know, Jesus Christ--who is no longer on earth--is actually the One who is "running everything," no matter who is elected. Writing in His name would not be "voting for the best man." He's not American, and He's not on earth.)
What makes the official Repub candidates "available" and "the best man you know" "not available"? If you're able to write someone in, he's just as "available" as anyone else in America. If you're not able to write someone in, why not vote "none of the above," since you have to "compromise your principles" (as you say) to vote for any of the official Repub candidates? Edited February 3, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

I've already said how I believe on this. Living on a sin-cursed earth, we are forced to make imperfect decisions every day. God expects us to do the best we can with what we have. I pick who I believe is the best candidate available. If Gingrich were running against Obama, I'd vote for Gingrich. But Gingrich is running against Paul, so I'm going to vote for Paul, because he's a better leader, more principled, keeps his pants on, stays faithful to the Constitution, is more conservative, doesn't flip-flop, and is a born-again Christian whose personal and public life reflects it without exploiting it.

Romney and Gingrich's so called "electability" is based on nothing but the whim of the people, so I think that over the long haul Paul is actually more electable than Newt or Mitt, because with Paul you actually have some substance behind what he's saying. I don't vote in the primary based on electability, but even if I did I'd vote for Ron Paul because I think a real constitutional conservative has a much better shot at beating Obama than a diet-Clinton or a diet-Obama does.

[JerryNumbers]

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.

Would it not be natural that the best man for the job, that the majority would not like him? Is he not also a Christian standing against homosexuality & abortions while believing our country has to live within its means?

[Brother Rick]

Would it not be natural that the best man for the job, that the majority would not like him? Is he not also a Christian standing against homosexuality & abortions while believing our country has to live within its means?

He is the against homosexuality, abortions, and is by far the best there is when it comes to the idea that we should live within our means. That being said, the best man for the job is not always despised by the masses: Regan wasn't, we was loved by the masses.

[Annie]

I've already said how I believe on this. Living on a sin-cursed earth, we are forced to make imperfect decisions every day. God expects us to do the best we can with what we have. I pick who I believe is the best candidate available.

But what I am asking is what you mean by "available." Isn't a write-in candidate just as available as any of the official candidates? And wouldn't selecting "none of the above" be just as available as any of the candidates? Why not choose these options if you're really and truly voting on nothing but principle?

Romney and Gingrich's so called "electability" is based on nothing but the whim of the people,

The "whim of the people" (or the desire of the people) is the very essence of "electability"(although I've already made the distinction between actual "whims" and true electability). If the majority of the people won't vote for a man, he is not electable. Therefore, based on your own definition, Ron Paul is the least electable one. "The people" have never, ever shown (even in an isolated poll) that they would as a group support him. Edited February 4, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

I don't see a "write in" candidate as a real candidate. I feel the best thing to do is vote for the best candidate.

There's a difference between whim and desire. Whims come and go, but desires do not. The American people desire to have good jobs, they desire to be able to take care of their family without leaning on the government, they desire to be able to have a leader that is consistent and moral, they desire to have their troops at home unless there's a good reason to not, they desire to have less taxes, and they desire to have more freedom. Those are real substantial desires, and they are best represented by Ron Paul.

The reason Paul's followers are fiercely loyal is because they've figured this out. If Paul won the primary, people would notice and there would be a clear choice between a huge government and a small government candidate. If Newt or Mitt gets it, we'll be choosing between a big government candidate and a huge government candidate.

If Paul got it, over the course of the election process the American people would be educated to the principles that Paul embraces, and his electability would grow as a result of it. Paul's followers generally support him out of principle and real desire, which is why you don't see his ratings bounce around like crazy. The other guys are all over the map and a single news article or debate can throw them off kilter - there is no principle behind their "electability" and there won't be any when either one of them gets in the ring with Obama.

[JerryNumbers]

I believe if you will check the history books you will find several write in candidates that won elections.

[swathdiver]

By voting for the heathen who has the best chance to beat the other heathen we are compromising. If we did not vote for these people the political party would be forced to put forth genuine Christians with sound salvation testimonies. None of these guys is willing to shout from the mountain top that they are wonderfullly saved by God's grace and have a personal relationship with the living God who answers their prayers. They are not willing to offend the heathen and are therefore cowards.

Mrs. DePriest we know them by their fruits and it's rotten. Newt is not saved, he doesn't even have a basic understanding of bible doctrine like we do. He eats, breathes and sleeps politics and his free time was previously spent on adultery and now writing secular books.

Our failure is in not cultivating our own candidates for political office at all levels of government. We've let the heathen, the statists, take over.

Without God to answer to, the heathen only answers to their belly and definitely won't honor and defend the Constitution as it restricts their desires.

[John81]

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.

I see Rick has already gave some good responses.

The fact is, electability is an unknown factor. JFK was once considered unelectable as president because he was Catholic. Reagan, Clinton and others were viewed as unelectable. On the other hand, one can look back to several who were predicted to be electable that were not.

If there is a worthy candidate on the ballot I will vote for them for whatever office they are running for. If there is not a worthy candidate for a particular office I will not vote for one of the unworthy candidates for that office.

[HappyChristian]

By voting for the heathen who has the best chance to beat the other heathen we are compromising. If we did not vote for these people the political party would be forced to put forth genuine Christians with sound salvation testimonies. None of these guys is willing to shout from the mountain top that they are wonderfullly saved by God's grace and have a personal relationship with the living God who answers their prayers. They are not willing to offend the heathen and are therefore cowards. Sadly, you are very wrong here, Swath. By NOT voting, not being involved in the political process (because Christian's aren't "supposed to" because this isn't our eternal home [note: I do not believe that, it is just common belief amongst too many Christians]), Christians have handed over control. And it wouldn't matter if they DID shout from the mountaintops that they are saved. A majority of people wouldn't believe them. Kinda like discussions we've had here before, tearing up politician's professions of faith because they don't follow the path some people think they should.

Mrs. DePriest we know them by their fruits and it's rotten. Newt is not saved, he doesn't even have a basic understanding of bible doctrine like we do. He eats, breathes and sleeps politics and his free time was previously spent on adultery and now writing secular books 1. We do know people by their fruits. And Newt has a bad history. But he has claimed that he's sought forgiveness. I choose to accept that, because I cannot see hearts. If he strays from this wife, he will prove to be a liar. And THEN we can say, "gotcha," since so many seem to be waiting to do so. 2. There isn't anything wrong with writing secular books (as long as they aren't filled with cussing and illicit sex).

Our failure is in not cultivating our own candidates for political office at all levels of government. We've let the heathen, the statists, take over. Yep. By not voting. I agree that it is a failure on the part of Christians. But it isn't because we haven't cultivated "our own candidates." What many have done is sat back and said Christians ought not to be involved. And so we've handed the political process over to the corrupt. And then we've grown complacent and quiet about what is right and what is wrong, blindly believing that all the while the corrupt government is robbing us of our liberties, we aren't to do anything but sit back and wait...

Without God to answer to, the heathen only answers to their belly and definitely won't honor and defend the Constitution as it restricts their desires. Actually this is not a true statement. The Constitution does not restrict their desires. The Constitution restricts the federal government. And that is the reason that even Roger Williams stated that, with the right legal document, even an atheist would be at the helm of government. And our founders understood as well, putting in the Constitution that there would be no religious test for federal office. If Americans, and particularly Christians, would do their duty as Americans, those in office would follow the Constitution - regardless of their religious beliefs. And our liberties would be intact.

[1Timothy115]

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."

What is it this election for? It's an election for a secular position as ordained in law for this nation (The U..S. Constitution).

So, you will never be voting in any election for anyone outside the local church?

Under the U.S. Constitution there will be no "religious test" for a public office.

I like separation but, I can't agree with you it applies to voting in elections.

[John81]

From what I've read and seen of Newt's idea of seeking forgiveness, it seems much more of the Catholic sort and not biblical. From many statements he's made, and the way he's talked about his adulteries, he doesn't seem sincere.

The Constitution would indeed restrict the desires of most running for office, which is why they ignore the Constitution, admit by their stated plans they won't follow the Constitution, and rule according to their worldview, not what the Constitution says. The Constitution was meant to be a chain to bind the federal government to its limited roles and to bind those in federal government to their limited roles. Those chains have long since been cast off and whoever wins the Dem or Repub nomination and becomes president will not seek to restore those constitutional chains.

[John81]

What is it this election for? It's an election for a secular position as ordained in law for this nation (The U..S. Constitution).

So, you will never be voting in any election for anyone outside the local church?

Under the U.S. Constitution there will be no "religious test" for a public office.

I like separation but, I can't agree with you it applies to voting in elections.

What does apply is voting as Christians.

Even if one chooses not to consider their Christianity and only want to go by the Constitution, one would be hard pressed to find a candidate who would actually take the oath of office seriously and actually do all they could to follow and restore the Constitution.

Would a voter be following the Constittution if they voted for a man who has put forth his plans that mostly are unconstitutional and has no plans for restoring the government and country to following the Constitution?

[1Timothy115]

What does apply is voting as Christians.

Even if one chooses not to consider their Christianity and only want to go by the Constitution, one would be hard pressed to find a candidate who would actually take the oath of office seriously and actually do all they could to follow and restore the Constitution.

Would a voter be following the Constittution if they voted for a man who has put forth his plans that mostly are unconstitutional and has no plans for restoring the government and country to following the Constitution?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. But, I hope those people stay home.

[Annie]

I don't see a "write in" candidate as a real candidate. I feel the best thing to do is vote for the best candidate.

I'm really not trying to be a bugger about this, but why do you "feel" this way? Is God not able to make a write-in candidate win? Really, what is the ONE DIFFERENCE between a write-in candidate and an official Repub candidate (other than that the write-in guy has better principles, character, and policy ideas than the official candidate)? The one and only difference is that the Repub candidate is more electable, right? Might this be why you "feel" that you should vote for a "real candidate"? I have absolutely no problem with this perspective (in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with it); the problem I have is if/when those who have taken me to task for considering "electability" as a factor in my decision about whom to vote for, and who say that they vote "on principle only" do not act in accordance with that claim. They say one thing out loud in a forum (and talk vitriolically about people who would "compromise their principles" by taking "electability" into consideration), while at the same time choosing to vote for a candidate whose principles they do not completely share instead of writing someone in or selecting "none of the above." You say "po-ta-to," I say "po-tah-to," but it all boils down to the same thing: both of us consider "electability" in our decision about whom to nominate for President.

There's a difference between whim and desire. Whims come and go, but desires do not. The American people desire to have good jobs, they desire to be able to take care of their family without leaning on the government, they desire to be able to have a leader that is consistent and moral, they desire to have their troops at home unless there's a good reason to not, they desire to have less taxes, and they desire to have more freedom. Those are real substantial desires, and they are best represented by Ron Paul.

The people do not desire Ron Paul to be their President. Not even the Republicans desire to have him as President. They never have, in any poll to date. It's not a whim, but a consistently expressed aversion.

The reason Paul's followers are fiercely loyal is because they've figured this out. If Paul won the primary, people would notice and there would be a clear choice between a huge government and a small government candidate. If Newt or Mitt gets it, we'll be choosing between a big government candidate and a huge government candidate.

I could be WAY wrong (it's happened a few times before ), but I don't see any way that Paul is going to win the primary. Not even his own party likes him. So, really, the point is moot. I would not vote for Ron Paul in the primary; the only time I would vote for him (holding my nose) would be in the general election against Obama.

If Paul got it, over the course of the election process the American people would be educated to the principles that Paul embraces, and his electability would grow as a result of it. Paul's followers generally support him out of principle and real desire, which is why you don't see his ratings bounce around like crazy. The other guys are all over the map and a single news article or debate can throw them off kilter - there is no principle behind their "electability" and there won't be any when either one of them gets in the ring with Obama.

Paul has had enough media exposure over the course of his political career (1976 to the present, including three runs for President to date) to provide ample opportunity for him to "educate" the American people about his principles. Yet he has still, after 35 years, not been able to attract a following of any significance; could this inability be due, not to a lack of education and understanding, but to a lack of agreement? He has remained on the fringe; his policies do not resonate with the vast majority of Republicans, let alone the rest of the country.

Look, I sure don't want to vilify Ron Paul. There are certainly some things about him that I find refreshing. But he's way off in other areas, IMO. He doesn't reflect what I'm looking for in a President. Edited February 4, 2012 by Annie