A Specific Voting Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yeoman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sedonaman said:
Why automatically assume that a 3rd party should get recognition? .
Click to expand...
Neither Yeoman nor anybody else was saying they should all get recognized. But if you decide that in your opinion a particular 3rd party candidate is worthy of consideration, and if enough other people think likewise then it seems right and proper that they should give that candidate the recognition by voting that way (unless you happen to be in an area where you decide it is more important to avoid the spoiler effect, which was not the case in the OP’s scenario).
 
sedonaman said:
You can see why your post caused some confusion.

That said, I think your fears about Romney’s Mormonism has about as much foundation as Al Smith’s Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify… it wasn’t my post or my fears. I merely included the applicable post so that I could quote from it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Neither Yeoman nor anybody else was saying they should all get recognized. …
Click to expand...
I didn’t say “all”. I said “a 3rd party”.
But if you decide that in your opinion a particular 3rd party candidate is worthy of consideration, and if enough other people think likewise then it seems right and proper that they should give that candidate the recognition by voting that way …
Click to expand...
This has about as much chance of happening as a rooster laying eggs with hair on them. I’ll stick with Dr. Jackson’s analysis.
 
sedonaman said:
I don’t think this is the case. It says we can consider secondary issues.
Click to expand...
Only “for other morally grave reasons” (USCCB forming consciences for faithful citizenship). But you don’t have to vote for either…and I refer you to page 12 of the CAF voters pamphlet regarding non-negotiables.
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
Only “for other morally grave reasons” (USCCB forming consciences for faithful citizenship). But you don’t have to vote for either…and I refer you to page 12 of the CAF voters pamphlet regarding non-negotiables.
Click to expand...
Could not find any reference to that in the document. You have a link?
 
Erich said:
…
A summary of the current version is available here.
Click to expand...
WHEN THERE IS NO “ACCEPTABLE” CANDIDATE
Click to expand...
In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions * or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option*, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.
Click to expand...
 
Discussions of politics (discussing particular candidates, asking who to vote for, etc.) among CAF members is acceptable only in the World News sub-forum.

If you wish to discuss the morality of voting for a candidate of a particular religious affiliation without naming names, you may start such a thread in Moral Theology.

Thread closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top