But over the 6 intervening presidential election cycles the debate has matured considerably. Now I hear Christians contemplating complicated electioneering strategies (like switching parties to vote for the other party’s worst candidate in the primary in the hope they will win the nomination and set up an easier race in the fall) or asserting that a vote for a good third party candidate is really a vote for the worst candidate. To which my response was, “Huh???”
So in an effort to catch up to my more articulate brothers and sisters on this quadrenially important topic, I sat down yesterday, after spending the day painting a large sign for my favorite candidate which will be mounted on the main traffic artery through our town, and tried to improve my contribution to this discussion.
On voting for the candidate who can’t win …
- Elections are not a horse race where voters try to pick the winning ticket.
- Elections are a wheelbarrow race where voters make the winner.
- Not voting for a good candidate because he is not expected to win is giving up before the
wheelbarrow race is over. - Choosing the lesser-of-two-evils over a good candidate because no else is voting for him is being controlled by peer pressure like a junior high socialite.
On voting for the lesser of two evils …
- If you vote for the lesser of two evils for President, you’ll always have an evil President.
- You can’t expect God to provide you with a good President when you vote for an evil one any more than you can expect God to provide you with daily bread when you sleep all day instead of working.
- Voting for the lesser of two evils disobeys the admonition in Exodus 18:21 to choose good men (i.e. able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness) to exercise civil rule.
- A vote for the lesser of two evils is doing evil in the hope of stopping evil.
- A vote for the lesser of two evils is a wasted vote in getting a good candidate elected.
- Voting for the lesser of two evils in the hope of avoiding a greater evil is like stealing food in order not to starve.
- Defining an election in terms of the lesser of two evils is like falling for the false dilemma of values clarification exercises where 5 people are stranded in a lifeboat with supplies for 4 and thinking that one person should be thrown overboard (regrettably, of course) in order to keep the other 4 alive.
- Voting for a good candidate instead of the lesser of two evils is not a vote for the greater of two evils, anymore than keeping 5 stranded people on a lifeboat for 4 is choosing to kill 5 people.
A vote for a good candidate is, as should be obvious, simply a vote for a good candidate.
Of course, I suspect the real issue is that lesser-of-two-evil voters do not really believe they are choosing the lesser to two evils. They believe they are choosing a basically good candidate who, while qualified for office, is simply not everything they might desire in an ideal candidate. ...
Read more
