Obligated to Vote?

[LeafByNiggle]

Because it is only intended that one give to charity part time - one will always have demands on one’s time, talent and treasure that prevent full giving.

But one cannot be a part-time or partly-active citizen of one’s local community, state or country, any more than one can be a part time parent or spouse…

Of course you can engage in voting part time. In fact everyone does, because opportunities to vote only come up occasionally. You claim that one must respond to absolutely every one of these opportunities, yet one can pick and choose which opportunities for charity one can respond to.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not disagreeing with your very good arguments for why voting in every election would be a prudently good thing to do. And I don’t take prudential judgement to mean the same thing as “do what ever you want, it’s all the same”. A prudential judgement can still be a bad judgement.

 

[Rence]

Are Catholics morally obligated to vote? Is it a sin to not vote? And if so, must we vote in absolutely every election or only major (say, state and national) elections?

I don’t know how it could be a sin not to vote considering the Catholic pressure some people feel. Not everyone has read the guidelines put out by the Bishops in order to feel confident in their decision. I mean: if you can’t vote for the candidate you believe in most, but can only vote for the candidate you believe in least (according to some on online Catholic forums), why should you go against your conscience and vote for someone you don’t believe in? I think that if a person can’t stomach voting for the candidate being pushed by some folks, and you don’t have the confidence to vote as you believe, that it wouldn’t be bad to just not vote at all.

 

[scameter18]

I completely agree with all that is taught in the CCC. My only reservation against voting was that every candidate I encounter does not embody every teaching they should follow. For example, one candidate may be against gay marriage and abortion, but favor capital punishment, or vice versa. I guess it is more a matter of the “least worst” than the best.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Every tax payer contributes substantially to the defence of their country, as a substantial portion of their tax dollars pay for military personnel salaries, equipment etc etc.

Interesting justification. (Stay safe. Hire a mercenary.) It is quite a stretch to consider paying taxes as fulfilling an obligation to defend one’s country.

And when it comes to charitable donations, you are willing to allow that people can use their own prudential judgment to decide how much to contribute.

However when it comes to voting, you do not allow for any prudential judgment. What if I live in a country where there is civil unrest and voting entails significant personal risk (such as in the recent elections in Iraq)? Will you allow that in such circumstance one might validly decide not to vote?

 

[LilyM]

Interesting justification. (Stay safe. Hire a mercenary.) It is quite a stretch to consider paying taxes as fulfilling an obligation to defend one’s country.

And when it comes to charitable donations, you are willing to allow that people can use their own prudential judgment to decide how much to contribute.

However when it comes to voting, you do not allow for any prudential judgment. What if I live in a country where there is civil unrest and voting entails significant personal risk (such as in the recent elections in Iraq)? Will you allow that in such circumstance one might validly decide not to vote?

Mercenaries? Mercenaries are foreign troops, not citizens employed in the defence of their country. And there’s nothing wring with a professional army - very few people are physically or mentally capable of the very strenuous job of being a soldier, sailor or marine.

By the way, I never said that there was NO room for prudential judgement. Personal safety concerns might legitimately prevent one from voting, or one might legitimately
choose not to vote if electoral fraud was likely to render one’s vote entirely worthless.

Although even then one can send a message, as the supporters of democracy did in Burma did by voting a few years back for Aung San Suu Kyi, which result, although not recognized at the time, contributed to the current more tolerant climate in Burma. And if you can miss Mass for reason of necessary work, childcare or illness then you wouldn’t be obligated to vote either.

All I was saying was that few if any of the reasons I’ve heard against voting in America strike me aa being important enough to justify not voting. There’s no such thing as a perfect candidate with perfect policies - ever - so no point in holding out for lack of sufficiently good candidates. All any voter can ever do at any time is choose the best available alternative.

And the Bishops have made their voting guidelines widely public, as do the candidates their policies. If people cannot be bothered reading and researching then that is shameful. And a very poor excuse for not doing something as essential as voting.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Mercenaries? Mercenaries are foreign troops, not citizens employed in the defence of their country. And there’s nothing wring with a professional army - very few people are physically or mentally capable of the very strenuous job of being a soldier, sailor or marine.

Yes, that was an exaggeration of mine. It was just to make the point that there is something a little smelly about buying one’s way out of personal risk, not because of physical or mental inability, but just out of a selfish desire to let others risk the ultimate sacrifice. But I withdraw the remark, since it apparently does not make the point very well.

All I was saying was that few if any of the reasons I’ve heard against voting in America strike me aa being important enough to justify not voting. There’s no such thing as a perfect candidate with perfect policies - ever - so no point in holding out for lack of sufficiently good candidates. All any voter can ever do at any time is choose the best available alternative.

Since you put it that way, I can totally agree!

 

[Garland]

Voteing done by Christian folks should reflect thier christianity. Had the 54% of catholics who voted the party of death to the unborn, done so we would now have 2 conservative judges on the supreme court instead of two things with no regard for the unborn as the man that appointed them has none. Roe V Wade would be on its way out and we would not be a murderous people to a segment or class of people, the unborn. There is no excuse for this and had I voted the death party I would not go to the Blessed Sacrament at any time without confession first.
Our protestant brothers in the mennonite and amish communities will not vote and to abstain is a vote for death. Blessings. Garland

 

[aragonjohn1]

Under the virtue. Patriotism you must vote if there is a moral societal reason to vote eg: between someone who approves of mass murder and someone who is a rabid Christian : P

 

[jonbhorton]

True but not exactly either…Taxes and Juries are “duties” imposed. Voting is a privilege and a right that can be exercised or not.

Paying taxes is something imposed and requires nothing more than obedience.
Serving on juries is not a “done deal” since there are many ways in which one can legitimately be excused from jury duty. In addition, one cannot be seated on a jury until the court “tests” you. There is no such “test” before voting. If you understand my meaning.

Voting is much more “Self Actualized”…

Voting, to do it well, requires research and a willingness to educate ones self in the various issues and persons running. OR it requires a great deal of trust in an organization who tells you how you should vote (organizations who “endorse” candidates).
These things require a voter to be “informed” and not simply go in and vote a name simply because that guy put out the most signs or whatever.

**Also, consider that in any parliamentary procedure when a vote comes up there are three possibilities. Yea, Nay, and Abstain. Not voting is in effect Abstaining and so - Not voting IS voting.

In some cases, a person might make the legitimate decision that it would be better if they not vote at all. In such a case where the person is trying to make the most moral decision, one can hardly say that they are sinning. **

Peace
James

This line of thought is exactly why I am only voting in the Republican Primary and unless Santorum wins the nomination (he won’t), I’ll abstain from the General election.

My vote in the primary is to hopefully take away a vote from Romney, but I refuse to engage in voting for an invalid ballot, as rendered by an invalid candidate who meets none of the criteria legally necessary to occupy the office of the President, i.e. Obama.

From a blog post regarding this issue:

Here are my reasons I am not excited:

Even inaction is action, if purposeful.

Romney will get the nomination, but he won’t get my vote in the primary or general. The primary, if I vote, will see a vote specifically to vote against Romney. This is more directed as a giant “screw you” to both Romney and the GOP at large. If Romney gets the GOP nomination (which he will) I won’t vote because I don’t trust: Mormons, slimy politicians, people from Massachusetts (particularly those who kowtow to the Kennedy legacy in practice), those who say anything about gun control in a positive manner, and socialized health care advocates. I especially do not like slimy Mormon politicians from Massachusetts who are gun control advocates and put into place a health care law which is bankrupting the state and served as a model for the national program (which is illegal any way you slice it).

Romney bowed out to let old Johnny McCain have “his” turn last time, so, it’s Mitt-the-man-who’s-full-of-rhymes with Mitt’s turn this go around.

Ron Paul is insane on certain aspects and it totally takes away his legitimacy on issues he is good on.

Gingrich is a consummate politician, which is actually an insult.

Santorum? No way he would get elected.

It’s Romney, and it’s been Romney, and I think the entire GOP should be ashamed of itself for that. The man is not a conservative until election cycles.
contd…

 

[jonbhorton]

I view America, in many ways, as a concept and ever decreasing possibility. We tend to have a nationally ingrained mindset of picking and choosing aphorisms and often out of context quotes, and through these, develop ideology which means well but is ultimately damaging; the idea of voting just to “vote” is absurd and totally in violation of both the spirit of voting, and the demands of a sovereign citizen to not participate in illegal processes thus giving them credence as legal and legitimate. For there even to be an option of voting against Obama (Soetoro, Bounel? Which is it?) means the system has utterly failed since at least sometime around, oh, the time he set foot on U.S. soil.

As with most failures, it was a chain reaction culminating in the horrible cataclysm of even making it on the DNC’s ballot. Since then, America has been slowly both dumbing down and smartening up regarding this nauseating reality. The man simply was not vetted and approved in accordance with the codified law set in place. He was illegally pushed through as a dumb-witted plant who speaks well (when tele-prompters are in use) and says nothing. He finally realized his lifelong selfish dream: attempt to destroy America while feeling accepted and vindicating daddy, while simultaneously flaunting his grandmother’s moot race and failing to mention she was also a frigging communist. His entire history of acquaintances, friends, and mentors have been either outright Marxists or subscribers to the Homohammed kool-aid: the affirmative action, anti-Christian, proto-Marxist, sexually perverse, bestiality and pedophilia stained precursor to what we see America and the entire Judeo-Christian West becoming; Europe is all but fallen to this despicable entity which offers variants of the same endgame: the destruction of Judeo-Christian culture and values. We are poisoning the world with this junk, both in practice domestically and kowtowing to their actions overseas.

We are supposed to be big boy on the block, and as much as I’d love a workable version of an isolationist policy, it’s absolutely untenable. That means we have to be strong globally. Morality must be the basis for this, a morality Romney doesn’t have, and Obama likely never did- even before he was molded into a little Manchurian Candidate. If we gotta defend this, “This We’ll Defend”, but we have dug our own grave, tied our own hands, and are on the way of pulling the trigger with our toes every single second we legitimize the man even being on the ballot to begin with. These people do it in openness, just as mohammedanism does it in openness in their areas. It is Satanic. When he can’t trick ya one way, he’ll get ya the opposite way. We are very polar minded, ergo our decrepit and abused two party system: which has deteriorated to a point that repair is all but impossible.

We must make some very hard sacrifice, or be prepared to make harder sacrifice. We won’t choose the lesser of the two. It’s in our rebellious nature. Some things are learned the hard way. Most things in fact. There is even religious credence being given to the murder of our next generation. And to generations which are. In Marxism, which is bearing down on us like a freight train, these things are given credence through backwards and immoral rhetoric disguised as charity, and glaringly false to all but the willingly ignorant, or morally and/or mentally deficient, and/or depraved. In mohammedanism, much of the same, not surprisingly.

To submit to the choice of submission or defilement masquerading as pure, and either way pay taxes which go towards immoral and anti-Christian activity, is the choice given in both mohammedanism and Marxism.

Pretend it’s not true if you want to, but we have all but been overrun. I will not surrender and submit to it by giving credence to it. I will not vote in anything but local or state elections until that is proven utterly failed as well, and my only federal voting activity will be in primaries, if at all. I will not sit back and keep quiet for fear of being called a bigot, lunatic, or any other manner of false and inapplicable epithets.

It is more than my right as a sovereign citizen of the United States, it is, in fact, my duty.

A vote with one choice is not a vote, it is acknowledgement of totalitarianism in a form which is easily sold to idiots.

 

[scameter18]

Thank you all for your wise and kind advice, I appreciate it.

 

[fakename]

I would also like to add a question.

All the obligations to vote are predicated on the idea that voting works.

If there were some set of conditions that made voting less effective (say that the votes of military officers are weighted higher than plebs as in the roman system), would most people still be obligated to vote?

Or if there was a way to make people’s will known w/o voting , would there still be an obligation?

 

[2cats]

The USCCB guide to faithful citizenship leaves open the possibility of abstaining. See sec. 36.

 

[Garland]

4,000 babies will die today in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Please give an answer to why any Christian could abstain or vote the death party and still call himself a beliver in Jesus Christ. Blessing. garland

 

[fakename]

user "Garland":

4,000 babies will die today in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Please give an answer to why any Christian could abstain or vote the death party and still call himself a beliver in Jesus Christ. Blessing. garland

perhaps he doesn’t think that there are babies dying?

Or again, perhaps he doesn’t think that voting is the best way to stop it. In someways writing to your representative is better than voting; unlike voting you can write more than once, and you can write for any single issue whereas voting is often done on a cluster of issues.

These are certainly possibilities; after all some people don’t even think they exist so how much easier is it for people to be skeptical of how voting works or how many people are dying per day?

That’s my 2 cents.

 

[Richard320]

I would have to say yes.

The Catechism is clear.

On a more practical level, in California anyway, if you fail to vote in a certain number of elections, you get stricken from the voter rolls. It’s not a big ordeal to re-register in time for the “big” elections, but here’s the catch: When petitions get circulated, like the Parental Consent Act, your signature is worthless.

Secondly, a lot of shady propositions and changes to the State Consitution - narrow-interest stuff - get put on a weak election. When there’s no Congressional, Gubernatorial, or Presidential elections, turnout tends to be very light. But the special interest groups really mobilize to “get out the vote” within their membership. So if only 13% of the state votes, but 80% of whoever turns out, a generally unpopular item can pass. And if you didn’t vote, it’s your fault.