To vote for the lesser of evils is to vote for less evil.

ewoksrule

ewoksrule

Active Member
http://www.epm.org/blog/2012/Oct/25/election-2012-part-5

Outstanding Article.

The key point for me...
If Romney was lying on everything he promised but kept only 1 promise, to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, it is worth it. Stopping our tax dollars from paying for abortions overseas (child sacrifice) is a big deal and it is the first thing every Democrat rescinds when they take office and every Repub reinstates. Our vote can help there be less evil in the world and we should look at it that way, not throw it away on a 3rd party candidate.
 
I didn't read your article yet Ewoks but after voting for John Mcain instead of Alan Keys I've never felt right about it. After long thought I came to the conclusion I voted for a candidate who "I" believed would win by Earthly standards instead of voting for what I believed God wanted me to. To say it a different way maybe you won't get that miraculous come out of nowhere win for a third candidate, maybe you will, but if there is ever to be a choice between a two party system someone is going to have to make a showing. I'd say that is not throwing away a vote. I'm just saying Christians shouldn't be overtly concerned with "winning" but with doing God's will first and always. That is as validated by the Bible, prayer, research and not just your "feelings". Vote on God's will, not candidate promises, not the song and dance and not just on the best chance. I don't expect a candidate to be perfect so I probably will vote for Romney but not just because he is not Obama.

Anyway I didn't want to take the wind out of your sails but that's the conclusion I came to long ago. P.S. I'll try to read your article later.
 
Last edited:
Read it. A tiny bit disconcerting how often he says there are only two candidates who can win but regardless it is a good article with some points I agree on.

When he says I want to pick a candidate who will win this time I immediately question how far he is willing to compromise to achieve this end. There is a point of compromise you just don't pass, it would be like cheating to win. You want to win to support your beliefs but you give up your beliefs to win so what is the point? He says he will address compromise on Monday but I hope he makes his limit clear. It is not liberal ideals alone that have put our nation in it's current position rather it is that exact spirit of compromise. Democrats want XXX and Republicans want YYY so Republicans compromise and we get XXY. It slows the slide but if we never make progress it's just one step forward and two steps back. If all you ever do is slow evil it wins by attrition! As such I will vote for a XYY Republican but not a XXY Republican and certainly not a XXX Democrat. The crux is there is a difference between voting for someone who will make things better and one who will simply do less evil. I remember a commentator talking about pork being added to Bush budgets and them passing multiple times because we "needed" the security/defense. The reality is someone must say NO and when everyone suffers for it say "we can't have the things we need because others won't let go of the things they want". Democrats must, MUST, come to the point of compromising (or be removed) because it's getting to the point there is no more compromise room on the other side. It's like Israel and Iran you can only wait so long and that's it period, that's reality.

To draw an analogy say you've got three candidates, each with a chance of winning, and each who will do certain things. Candidate one is a 49% chance of winning and will give you a quick death, two is 49% with a slow death and three is 2% who will let you live. It really doesn't matter if it's a slow or quick death, it's still death, so I am taking the 2% chance to live. So the question is not is Romney less evil than Obama but do you think Romney is good enough to reverse the decline, will he say NO or will it just be a slower death. I guess you could say I vote on a threshold. I ask will a candidate help more than he harms.

Please note I used the deficit as an underlying example of the lack of room for compromise but homosexuality, abortion and sin also incur a debt which nations have a limit on bearing as well. Sodom and Gomorrah only went so far before... XD. I will also always vote for morals over money (although morality makes money). There is no point in being a rich and powerful nation if we only use it to support immoral practices in other words Mark 8:36 .

Oh and please note I don't actually have a third candidate I've been considering, at least not yet. That will be determined when I research Romney better before voting for him.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, but in reality there are only 2 candidates that can win. To say otherwise is silly. Also, not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama in most of these key states which ultimately is a vote for greater evil. You can vote for one of these other candidates that might actually stop the evil and reverse it, but they have no chance of winning so you just voted for Obama and greater evil.

If for no other reason, voting for Romney will stop your tax dollars from funding child sacrifices overseas.
 
Last edited:
He quoted two other articles that were very interesting on this topic.
This election's choice: Romney, third-party (=Obama), or don't vote (=Obama)?
some key points:
You want to make a statement? Buy a sign. Get a blog.

You want to make a difference? Vote for the only candidate with any possibility of making any positive difference in any of the categories I've outlined. That would be — much as I regret to have to say it — Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

and

Math and Elections
some key points:
1. Do whatever you think is best in the primaries. I think you should vote as far to the side of the spectrum you favor as you can stomach in the primaries. You should pull your party as far to your way of thinking in the *internal* decision-making process as you think you and your like-minded friends can do it.


2. You have to accept that if our republican form of government is a legitimate form of government, you are never going to get everything you want – even in your own party. And you have to accept that, frankly, that’s a good thing – because you are a sinner just like that tax collector over there. Literally.


3. Once the primaries are settled, you have to do the math. That is: you have to vote for someone with a mathematical likelihood of winning if you really want to affect change. By that, I mean this: historically, there is no way in the clear blue sky that you will ever get a BLUE-side candidate who will get less than 43% of the vote. It simply will not happen. That means your candidate, to actually affect change, has to get a minimum of 44% of the vote to win. Given the numbers above, that means all the Indie voters, and more than half the registered “BLUE” voters. If your alternative candidate cannot get that many votes – and I propose to you that it doesn’t matter who he is: he can’t get them – then you have to ask yourself: do I affect any change by voting for the mathematically-guaranteed loser?


4. Relating to the question asked, above, this is exactly how a vote against Obama but not for Romney ensures Obama’s victory:mathematically, Obama has a winning plurality of core voters, and no one else does.Seriously: if the electorate splits by registration saturation, BLUE wins the plurality. When you cast your vote, you need to vote remembering that if you cast a vote which creates a plurality, you are spinning the result toward the party with the inherent plurality-winning base.


1, 3 and 4 are simple mathematical realities; 2 is a political reality – that is, accepting the rules by which the game is played.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ewoksrule said:
Hmm, but in reality there are only 2 candidates that can win. To say otherwise is silly.
Click to expand...
Sigh, I'm not expecting a miracle but to say it there are only two candidates so often, not just say it but seemingly drive it home, belies a faith not in God first but in polls. Do I think a third candidate will win, no, do I think a third candidate could win, yes if God wants it. Perhaps it was simply to obvious to mention since he is an already a loudly professing Christian several times in the article.

I don't know how to re-iterate it but I've never ever expected to get everything I want in any candidate. Rather I see no point in voting for a candidate past a certain point. If both are so far out there I cannot agree with anything, on either, better to abstain or vote for a third party and at least the next election candidates will see you did and may actually change to get your vote. That is if there are enough of a minority willing to do so. As long as everyone follows the pack they never will. Why would canidates ever change if you give them your vote anyway? How often has a candidate courted a specific minority to push them over winning, A LOT (to often really but I digress). They just got done saying how the polls show Romney pulling ahead on the women vote. Why? Because he changed to get their votes. The assumption the author makes is being concerned with only one election and winning that one election but the next election looks at the results of this one. To his credit he talks about doing whatever in the primaries, great, but I'm still not going to vote for the mass murder over the genocidal mass murder if those are my choices. I'm going to find a third option or pick up a weapon to make one.

Would you vote for a rabidly pro-choice, Israel bashing, gay candidate if he didn't kick kittens like the other choice? I don't think it matters he has less evil at that point and there are better things to do with your vote then.

Once again I do not think Romney falls in the category of "to far out there to vote for" but I reserve judgement until I actually vote.
 
Last edited:
I hear you man, and I don't like it but the math says that if you don't vote for Romney..if you vote for a 3rd party or you abstain from voting, you just voted for Obama. That is what is driving me nuts right now in Colorado. I don't want to vote because I hate my options but I think I hate one less and it seems more religious freedoms will be preserved under one, so I have to go vote for him or else I am voting for Obama...sucks.
 
Last edited:
ewoksrule said:
I hear you man, and I don't like it but the math says that if you don't vote for Romney..if you vote for a 3rd party or you abstain from voting, you just voted for Obama. That is what is driving me nuts right now in Colorado. I don't want to vote because I hate my options but I think I hate one less and it seems more religious freedoms will be preserved under one, so I have to go vote for him or else I am voting for Obama...sucks.
Click to expand...

The worst part is they know that. I wonder how many third party candidates are secretly for a certain candidate and use that to split the vote away from a contender. It may not be common but I am sure it has happened.

I remember getting a flyer that was designed to look Republican but was in reality a Democrat one in fine print on the back.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, it seems to me that the idea of moral obligation is to do what is right even when it is not advantageous. I fully understand the math of the state of this election, but the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

As an aside, I'm not bent on calling either major candidate an evil. There are things about both I like, and there are things about both I can't stand. Then there are third parties that I am much more on board with than either.

But here's another thing about numbers. So long as the mentality of "if you're not A, then you're really supporting B" is perpetuated, we'll never have viable third parties. In the short term, voting Johnson instead of Romney means one less vote toward the major possibility of having someone other than Obama in office, but it may have long-term gains. Say 2% of voters this election vote Libertarian (or Green or Justice or anything else). That's 2% that Republican and Democrat are both missing. What if 2% this election becomes 4% the next and so on? Even if it's one vote at a time, the only way a viable multi-party election will come about is if people start worrying more about supporting what is best rather than what is thought to be less bad.

To continually choose the lesser of two evils only slows the rate of descent into evil. [Edited] I see the merit to such a pragmatic approach now. Still, like with the example of the Mexico City Policy, one candidate from one party can do a certain good that the next president from the other party can just as soon undo. Does picking Republic now to only have the next Democrat undo it (or vice versa) reap longterm rewards, or is it possible that enduring a greater evil for a while to support a greater good in the future could be the better option?



And, as another aside, to say "a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama" assumes that the vote would otherwise go to Romney. Does the same remain true if someone who would typically vote Democrat votes for Jill Stein, or is that a vote for Romney?


The job of the American people is to support what they think is in the best interest of the country last I checked. Call it idealism. Call it naive. But I still cling to the American dream and American values of no-compromises in truth, justice, and the common good. Yes, it's true, elections come down to votes, but politics and voting (and making morally-sound decisions in general) need to be more than just numbers games.

My $0.02.


Edit: Didn't read the article yet, but these thoughts have been running through my head for a while now, and I couldn't hold them in anymore. :p Gonna read it now, though. :)

Edit 2: Okeydokey. Read the article. Really liked it. Really glad I did. Thanks. :) He's got some great points. I have a hard time disagreeing with his reasoning. I think there's definite merit to saying that the lesser of two evils may be still evil... yet it is still less evil.

But I still ultimately stick to my idealism. It's worth clinging to for me, but I do get the more pragmatic option and understand the math behind it. And if you (applying to anyone) feel that it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils in voting than choose a more ideal third option that has practically no chance of winning, more power to you. :)
 
Last edited:
I've heard that a vote for third party is a vote for Obama, but what about the democrats who are voting for a third party?
 
saudi said:
I've heard that a vote for third party is a vote for Obama, but what about the democrats who are voting for a third party?
Click to expand...

That is extremely unlikely. Most Liberals pick one issue and vote for that issue. That's how most Dems get elected, they can be all things to all people. (and giving our money away)
 
As I stated in the other sub forum (what does God say about...). That blog Ewoks linked to mentions something that I found rather simple and yet profound:

Child, every vote for a mere son of Adam is a vote for the lesser of two evils. There are no exceptions!
Click to expand...
 
I think it all comes down to what you consider evil, the sins you are okay with and the sins you are not okay with, and your world view.

Great post Kendrik.

Now... For a while I've also had a problem with a notion that seemingly will not go away - the notion that insinuates "Well you're not a Democrat, so therefore you must be a small-minded Republican religious nut job" and "Well you aren't a Republican so therefore you must be a morality-devoid atheist hippy Democrat." This only divides us and gets us no where.

The notion that we have to settle for candidates bothers me because it in a way limits my voice as an American. Will a 3rd-Party candidate be elected this time? Heck no. Did you know that Jill Stein and her VP were arrested as they tried to enter the Hofstra University for the 2nd Presidential debate? Granted they didn't "have the right credentials."

It's late and I am afraid to type out anything more with how little brain power I have right now (I prefer to put my foot in my mouth when I'm awake). But I am tired of people on both sides of the isle assuming that members of the other party are the equivalent of Satan spawn. It's gotta stop.

Also, you're voting for one human over another (or eventually, hopefully, other humans). Of course you'll be voting for an element of evil - we aren't perfect!
 
Last edited:
Now that I've had time to sleep and think it through, what I really like about that quote is this:

1. By voting for a human, you are voting for an element of evil -- as Odale said above, we aren't perfect.
2. By voting for a human, you aren't possibly voting for an evil that is greater than what Our God can handle. Since those don't exist.
3. No matter who wins, ultimately the future is firmly in the hands of God.
 
Nice reminder Neirai, we forget that politics is a game played everywhere with varying results, and that it is part of the human condition. Now if I were a Canadian I would vote for Red Green. "Power to Da Duck Tape"!:p
 
ursen said:
Nice reminder Neirai, we forget that politics is a game played everywhere with varying results, and that it is part of the human condition. Now if I were a Canadian I would vote for Red Green. "Power to Da Duck Tape"!:p
Click to expand...
This makes me happy. :D haha
 
Neirai the Forgiven said:
Also, as a comment, in my lifetime in Canada I've seen a party go from non-party status to majority. It can and does happen.
Click to expand...
Canada isn't fighting 150+ years without a party collapse or rise :D

My feelings on the issue:
As a rational human being, and a Christian, I cannot vote for a party/candidate that supports the killing of babys. To do so would be like murdering each and every baby myself. I also cannot vote for a third party, even knowing that in our current political climate it will do the long term good of possibly bringing in a new party, because it won't stop a candidate that kills babys from being elected.

Therefore, I believe that the clear choice is the major party/candidate who, while they may have some issues in other areas, is against the killing of babys.

It is our duty as Christians to vote. We are called by God to change the world. How can we do that without taking an active role in politics?

Voting for a candidate that will not win isn't voting for the will of God. I don't think anyone can say that it's God's will that we have a president that supports abortion. If now, in this election, we vote for a third party that has no chance of winning, aren't we just allowing what happened in '08 to happen again? 15 million Christians stayed home for the '08 election. A pro-abortion candidate was elected, and you can trust me, if another pro-abortion candidate is elected, our country will continue to run out of grace.

It's only so long til things take a serious downturn. Lets change before that happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top