Elections and Moral Conscience of a Family

[AlphaFoxtrotNW]

Hey, sorry mods if this is the wrong forum to post this in but I feel that this is a family matter.
Currently, I am old enough, with almost everyone else in my family, to vote for this years presidential elections. However, and I dont mean to put either candidate down, but I believe they are…unqualified. To quote Jeff Dunham, “Why cant this be like poker where you can fold and deal a new hand?” I feel this way because I am trapped between, what I feel, are two evils, almost equal in there actions. My point of posting this is, Can I vote for either Trump or Clinton, with a good and moral conscience? or should I abstain, possibly getting one or the other into office because of my negligence?

 

[Little_Sheep]

Hey, sorry mods if this is the wrong forum to post this in but I feel that this is a family matter.
Currently, I am old enough, with almost everyone else in my family, to vote for this years presidential elections. However, and I dont mean to put either candidate down, but I believe they are…unqualified. To quote Jeff Dunham, “Why cant this be like poker where you can fold and deal a new hand?” I feel this way because I am trapped between, what I feel, are two evils, almost equal in there actions. My point of posting this is, Can I vote for either Trump or Clinton, with a good and moral conscience? or should I abstain, possibly getting one or the other into office because of my negligence?

Vote your conscience. That is all any of us can truly do.

For me, neither candidate is evil and one is clearly a better choice than the other. So this year isn’t tough on me that way. However, in the past, there have been years that were tough.

God’s peace to you and your family.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Some will try and manipulate you by implying you will be to blame for any outcome but that’s not the way we should look at democracy really.

In the UK with five-and six-way contests (whether first past the post or proportional) and - except for the new style “mayors” - voting for members rather than leaders, we mostly have the opportunity to be nuanced e.g voting for a less bad candidate.

We can balance voting for and against candidates with voting for and against parties that might get swept into/stay in power.

In fact I think that if there are at least three candidates the most moral course is tactical voting.

In a secret ballot it is your prerogative to keep quiet about what you intend and what you have done (also if abstaining).

My parents once told me they always voted for candidates of a different party from each other (except local, when we were always Residents!). All the parties were different then anyway.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think this is acceptable moral reasoning, but it is just my opinion:

I think it is possible to give a vote of discontent without voting for either major candidate when you discern both have major flaws in the most likely actions they would take if elected. (That is, you can vote based on what you reasonably believe they would actually do if elected, even if one or even both are saying “all the right things.”)

It would be bad to pass over a candidate who is likely to support a more just government because the candidate holds some views that might harm programs that you support merely out of a self-interest. You wouldn’t want to fail to support such a candidate out of sloth, for a light reason or because of a mere personal aversion to the candidate or the party.

You’re not talking about that, though. You’re talking about two candidates you believe would each further injustices or evils if elected, albeit different ones. In that case, provided all the issues you are weighing are serious, you don’t have to rank the evils and vote for the candidate who represents the “lesser” of the two. You can vote for a third option, even a write-in who cannot reasonably be expected to win, and by your vote register your discontent that a more suitable candidate than the major ones was not available.

A reservoir of voters who do bother to vote but who **do not **choose to vote for either major candidate will be noticed by political observers, especially people with more suitable objectives who might consider running in the future. The existence of your voting bloc might encourage more suitable candidates to run next time.

What you don’t want to do is to fail to vote and by that seem not to care at all who is elected.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Hey, sorry mods if this is the wrong forum to post this in but I feel that this is a family matter.
Currently, I am old enough, with almost everyone else in my family, to vote for this years presidential elections. However, and I dont mean to put either candidate down, but I believe they are…unqualified. To quote Jeff Dunham, “Why cant this be like poker where you can fold and deal a new hand?” I feel this way because I am trapped between, what I feel, are two evils, almost equal in there actions. My point of posting this is, Can I vote for either Trump or Clinton, with a good and moral conscience? or should I abstain, possibly getting one or the other into office because of my negligence?

I’m not giving either Trump or Hillary my vote, no way, no how. :nope:

You are certainly not morally obliged to pick a “lesser of the two evils.” Heck, I can’t tell a difference it’s so bad this year. Lord have mercy!

You can either vote for a third party if one suits your fancy, write in a candidate or abstain from voting this election.

It’s that simple.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Easter Joy’s reasoning here is strong and I was about to state the same thing so hopefully there will be (an) additional, better candidate(s).

 

[AdamP88]

The way I see it, Hilary is definitely not an option for Catholics as she promotes abortion at every opportunity. Trump is also a problem as he promotes crazy. I would say a third party is best too.

 

[pensmama87]

I will be voting third party or writing in.

I don’t stay home because there are lots of other races as well where my vote counts a lot more.