If we are bound to vote for the lesser evil. Shouldn't we all vote for the American Solidarity Party?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I voted for it and if more people would it would be more viable. I voted my conscience.
 
The problem seems to LIE with the two party tradition which has always been a concern. Three parties might get more done for the majority of the country. What is more important than life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This years Democrat platform declares that abortion, taxation and forced toleration are most important. Has toleration become a direct first step to condoning? What is greater evil than condoning and supporting the killing of innocents? I cannot support those who would kill for monetary gain and do not understand the journey taken by those who do not admonish such wrong.
 
Formon said:
40.png
WannabeSaint:
We are bound to vote for the lesser evil between candidates when both candidates have morally objectional platforms.
Click to expand...
Not true. We can choose to not vote at all which I have done many times.
Click to expand...
Not voting isn’t a valid Catholic option. If you can’t vote for anyone, then you should write in a name (even if it’s yourself). <<< OF COURSE, this assumes that write-in names are allowed where you live, otherwise, leave that candidate blank

But not voting at all is not a valid Catholic option.
 
Last edited:
All I’m going to say about the American Solidarity Party is the following:
  1. I know people who are members but they plan on voting for Trump. Reason: They know there is zero chance for their candidate to win. If a third party candidate doesn’t get invited to the debates, and gets practically zero news coverage, they have no chance to win.
  2. Their party’s platform specifically calls for the US to re-enter the Iran Nuclear Deal, which is something a lot of people are hesitant about. Even Sen Chuck Schumer broke from Obama and most of the Senate Democrats to say no. However, the ASP is placing a party position on that specific deal.
  3. They have some economic views that some faithful Catholics might consider to be a bit naive because they seem to be built more upon social science vs. economics & finance.
 
The Church has said that one can consider the issue of electability as a matter of prudence. Your point makes sense for those that use the “five non-negotiable” logic, but the Church teaches a little more nuanced and prudent approach.
phil19034 said:
Not voting isn’t a valid Catholic option.
Click to expand...
From the USCCB
  1. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
phil19034:
Not voting isn’t a valid Catholic option.
Click to expand...
From the USCCB
  1. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Part I - The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life | USCCB
Click to expand...
Correct… they don’t have to vote for any of the candidates. But they should still vote, even if they do a write in or leave that particular office blank.

Elections typically have several offices to vote for. We need to vote. But we don’t have to always vote for the candidates on the ticket.
 
Last edited:
I will note that they did call even this step “extraordinary.” It should never be anyone’s go-to excuse for not making a decision.

Also, voting twice does not make up for missing. I am feel better here getting my own voting behind me for a while.
 
Wesrock said:
It’s simple, just indicate whose your first choice, second choice, third choice (etc…) for as many or as few candidates as you want, and you can vote third party without so-called “wasting” your vote
Click to expand...
I never heard of this and now I’m intrigued…
 
One solution I’ve heard of is for the election itself to be reformed to have instant-runoff voting. The way that would work is that instead of just voting for one candidate you’d rank them in order of which one you prefer, excluding the ones you’d never vote for at all. That way people would feel safer voting for third party candidates because there wouldn’t be a spoiler effect.
 
That is a fair point, but unfortunately whether or not you take responsibility you’ll still end up baring the burden of the spoiling.
 
I actually don’t have a problem voting third party (though, I openly support Trump in this election cycle). The problem is ballot access laws. We can’t vote for someone that isn’t on the ballots (and suggesting write in votes is problematic, because different states have different rules on them).
Also, a HUGE problem with your suggestion: Not everyone on CAF lives in the US.
 
I’m just pointing out the results, and that said results remain the same even if you say “it’s their fault, not mine”. In elections what most people care about are results.

To use the Green Party as an example (since it was the third party that got the most votes in the last election), if it gets a significant amount of votes but doesn’t win then a Republican victory will be guaranteed since those Green votes didn’t go to the Democratic party whom they were ideologically closer to.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
phil19034:
If you can’t vote for anyone, then you should write in a name (even if it’s yourself).
Click to expand...
Nine states in the US do not allow write-in voting.

Write-in candidate - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
And in those states you simply leave the box blank for that office, if you cannot vote for any candidate in good conscience.

But you cast a ballot, because I’m sure you can vote for someone, even if it’s just “county commissioner,” etc.

The point is, you still cast a ballot - you don’t stay home.
 
Formon said:
40.png
phil19034:
If you can’t vote for anyone, then you should write in a name (even if it’s yourself).
Click to expand...
Not an option where I live.
Click to expand...
Like I said above, then you leave that particular office blank, if you must still cast a ballot and vote for other offices on the ticket.

This is why the bishops create a voting guide for almost every state (if not for every state), so we know the positions of candidates for the lower offices.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Independent voters don’t “spoil” anything. DNC and RNC spoil the election by propping up candidates who don’t earn votes. Their choices spoil the election, not mine.

If you wish to point a finger elsewhere, look to the non-voters. What if "Didn't Vote" was a Candidate? - ShelfTalk.net
Click to expand...
Votes for third party candidates don’t “spoil” anything.

However, it is important to be aware of what kind of unintended consequence voting for a third party candidate may have.

If both RNC and DNC candidates are unqualified, it’s important to consider which candidate the third party candidate is syphoning off votes from.

It could potentially result in the candidate with the most evil positions to win.

I’m not saying that’s the voter’s fault, but it is an unintended side effect that voters should consider & make sure they are ok with it.

Afterall, part of our responsibility in voting is to promote the common good. If our third party vote (aka protest vote) in a tightly contested election causes the worse candidate to win, then did we promote the common good by our action?

For example: if we look at Michigan in 2016, one can easily say that votes for Jill Stein (if not also others - I don’t know the policy positions of the other 3rd party candidates), may have cost Hillary Michigan. However, we also don’t know how many of the Gary Johnson votes would have gone to Hillary vs Trump if they all picked one of the two main candidates.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

My point is simply this: when voting third party, I suggest it’s important to CONSIDER the possible unintended consequences. That doesn’t mean you can’t vote for one, but one should at least making sure they are considering all possible results.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top