Vote a split ticket?

[prv]

No, but it has been SAID here by many that if you vote for a pro-life Democrat, you are still voting “pro-abortion” because the party’s platform says “pro-choice-on-abortion.” It has also been said here that if one votes for a third party candidate, they are essentially voting for the “pro-abortion” candidate. What am I to conclude, then? Only Republicans who say that they are “pro-life” are the only ones we may consider unless both major party candidates are pro-choice-on-abortion, in which case, we should choose the one who appear to be the most “pro-life” (which is usually the Republican because of the Republican Party’s so-called pro-life platform).

Ah, what a lowsy choice…

It is also well know that there are pro-death Republicans,etc (isn’t the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee one of them?). So if you vote Republican, you may get one of those as well. Perhaps many of them. What are we to say, then? Third parties, I don’t buy that. If people were more informed about their right to vote for third party candidates, then they may actually get into office, not just siphon votes from one or another candidate.

After all, if one Democrat (w/ all his/her baggage) and a Republican (w/ all his/her baggage) are equally both pro-life and will advocate for the same pro-life policies once in office, may we not also believe that the other baggage comes into play when making a choice?

 

[rlg94086]

Ah, what a lowsy choice…

It is also well know that there are pro-death Republicans,etc (isn’t the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee one of them?). So if you vote Republican, you may get one of those as well. Perhaps many of them. What are we to say, then? Third parties, I don’t buy that. If people were more informed about their right to vote for third party candidates, then they may actually get into office, not just siphon votes from one or another candidate.

After all, if one Democrat (w/ all his/her baggage) and a Republican (w/ all his/her baggage) are equally both pro-life and will advocate for the same pro-life policies once in office, may we not also believe that the other baggage comes into play when making a choice?

IMHO, we should always vote for the best pro-life politician who can win. Third party candidates usually capture less than 10% of the vote with rare exceptions - Jesse Ventura, Joe Lieberman, etc.

I think people are well informed on the “right” to vote third party. There is a list of candidates on the ballot from multiple parties, and they can choose any one of them on the day they vote. The “right” is right in front of their face…unless they can’t read or comprehend.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

IMHO, we should always vote for the best pro-life politician who can win. Third party candidates usually capture less than 10% of the vote with rare exceptions - Jesse Ventura, Joe Lieberman, etc.

I think people are well informed on the “right” to vote third party. There is a list of candidates on the ballot from multiple parties, and they can choose any one of them on the day they vote. The “right” is right in front of their face…unless they can’t read or comprehend.

Oh, that’s understood, but it has been said, on several occasions, that voting third party always implies support for candidates that are pro-choice-on-abortion. In some cases, it could be a pro-life vote that is in protest of the other policies of the Republican. Does the Church say we must vote for the person why says they are pro-life and are part of a major party or that we must vote for the person who is the most pro-life?

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, that’s understood, but it has been said, on several occasions, that voting third party always implies support for candidates that are pro-choice-on-abortion. In some cases, it could be a pro-life vote that is in protest of the other policies of the Republican. Does the Church say we must vote for the person why says they are pro-life and are part of a major party or that we must vote for the person who is the most pro-life?

Well, I don’t have the wording of the Church in front of me, but quite frankly, I’m going to vote the way that I know will further the pro-life cause…and that will be a member of one of the two major parties. A protest vote doesn’t do anything. Unless someone is in office, they can have no effect legislatively.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Well, I don’t have the wording of the Church in front of me, but quite frankly, I’m going to vote the way that I know will further the pro-life cause…and that will be a member of one of the two major parties. A protest vote doesn’t do anything. Unless someone is in office, they can have no effect legislatively.

Ah, and in the context of where I am voting, a vote a right-wing Republican running for congress would be meaningless. Remember, I live in the heart of Los Angeles. Futher, in California, abortion will likely not be banned in the event of Roe v. Wade being overturned. This does not mean that I won’t vote pro-life in national races and I certainly won’t vote for someone who makes a big deal about being pro-choice in races for California Constitutional Officers!

 

[Fitz]

I have always split tickets if it was the right thing to do. I will continue to do so. I pulled up the Illinois Citizens for Life website and found a rating of all our politicians. It rated them; 1) Fully Prolife 2) Not in full support of all Pro-Life issues, 3) Will not support most Pro-life Issues, and 4) Totally opposed to Pro-Life Issues. It also lets me know which politicians have made the exception for cases of rape and incest. So, this is rather complete and there are many prolife Democrats running and some pro-death Republicans. However, the party will not be my decision maker. I can’t vote for Governor in my state because the two main candidates are pro-death. I will write in a candidate I think.

I do hope that many people do the same thing and that the candidates get the message loud and clear.

 

[maryj]

Excuse me. Can you please show me where I supported the “political party that was responsible for 47 million abortions since 1973?” Can you please indicate where I supported “the president who vetoed late term abortion ban?” Oh, and while you’re at it, please show me where I supported “the party that supports homosexual marriages.”

Now, if pointing out that the Republican party is leading us along with their “pro-life” talk and little symbolic “pro-life actions” that do NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions so they can get our vote is pro-Democrat, then I think it speaks more to your being a loyalist Republican partisan than actually being pro-life. The same goes with gay “marriages.”

The Republican party isn’t pro-life, they’re pro-Republican-in-power, period end. If that means tacking on a pretend “pro-life” plank to their platform in order to get the vote of Christians, they’ll do it in a heartbeat. If it means tacking on a “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank to their platform, they’ll do that, too. Whatever gets us to vote for them.

Now, if the Republican party were to decide to jettison the pro-life plank, which they would do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do, then? If they were to jettison the “no-gay-‘marriage’” plank, which they would also do right now if it meant getting votes, what would you do?

Would you leave the Republican party? Would you stay in it? This is where the important question is. I see through their talking points and lies and see tha the Emperor has no clothes. Decrying that fact doesn’t mean that I am in support of the Democrats, it means that I can no longer stand by and be lied to without decrying the liars for what they are.

The Biography of a Bad Statistic…Quote, Now if pointing out that the Republican party is leading us along with their Pro-life talk and little symbolic pro-life actions that do nothing to reduce the number of abortions so they can get our vote is pro-democrat,then I think it speaks more to your being a loyalist republican partisan than actually being pro-life…factcheck.org/article330m.html

 

[Fitz]

I have always split tickets if it was the right thing to do. I will continue to do so. I pulled up the Illinois Citizens for Life website and found a rating of all our politicians. It rated them; 1) Fully Prolife 2) Not in full support of all Pro-Life issues, 3) Will not support most Pro-life Issues, and 4) Totally opposed to Pro-Life Issues. It also lets me know which politicians have made the exception for cases of rape and incest. So, this is rather complete and there are many prolife Democrats running and some pro-death Republicans. However, the party will not be my decision maker. I can’t vote for Governor in my state because the two main candidates are pro-death. I will write in a candidate I think.

I do hope that many people do the same thing and that the candidates get the message loud and clear.

Here’s he link for other Illinois voters that are interested:
www173.pair.com/icl/Gen06.pdf

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The Biography of a Bad Statistic…Quote, Now if pointing out that the Republican party is leading us along with their Pro-life talk and little symbolic pro-life actions that do nothing to reduce the number of abortions so they can get our vote is pro-democrat,then I think it speaks more to your being a loyalist republican partisan than actually being pro-life…factcheck.org/article330m.html

The table there shows that the reduction has leveled off, not continued to go down at the same rate as before Bush took office, where he had no legislative obstacles to getting a pro-life agenda going, except save a filibuster. Outright banning of abortion would not have passed congress, but other important steps to reduce abortions were possible and not taken.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree with you. I just moved from Sunnyvale, CA. The vote in my district (14) for Anna Eshoo (D) went 70% versus 26% for the GOP candidate and 4% the Libertarian. I even went through the utterly useless exercise of writing my congressman regarding the stem cell proposition…I’m sure she read it with rapt interest in my consersative Catholic position.

Even my ultra-liberal brother in San Francisco bemoans the lack of choices in his local races. We joked that it is comparable to the old Soviet Union…only one candidate. He votes third party as an attempt to build some other choice up.

I’ve now moved to a Democrat, but closer, area in WA. I’m doing everything I can to get the pro-life, Republican candidates elected.

Ah, and in the context of where I am voting, a vote a right-wing Republican running for congress would be meaningless. Remember, I live in the heart of Los Angeles. Futher, in California, abortion will likely not be banned in the event of Roe v. Wade being overturned. This does not mean that I won’t vote pro-life in national races and I certainly won’t vote for someone who makes a big deal about being pro-choice in races for California Constitutional Officers!

 

[maryj]

The table there shows that the reduction has leveled off, not continued to go down at the same rate as before Bush took office, where he had no legislative obstacles to getting a pro-life agenda going, except save a filibuster. Outright banning of abortion would not have passed congress, but other important steps to reduce abortions were possible and not taken.

the table does not show that reduction has leveled off, could you show me evidence in that article that states that? Also do you have some facts to back up your statement about" important steps to reduce abortions were possible and not taken. Thank you in advance. Oh and one last thing IMHO Outright banning of Abortion WILL happen, be it from results of this upcoming election, or through the millions of prayers faithful catholics pray each day. Likely the second will aid in the first.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

the table does not show that reduction has leveled off, could you show me evidence in that article that states that?

Um, there is a graphic on that page with a graph that shows the abortion rate falling until around 2000 where it nearly leveled off.

Also do you have some facts to back up your statement about" important steps to reduce abortions were possible and not taken. Thank you in advance.

For starters, where are the regulations requiring full disclosure of what abortion is, the dangers thereof and what it will do? How about regulations requiring that women be notified of all their options, ie., carry to term and raise the baby, give baby up for adoptin, etc.) before an abortion.

Oh and one last thing IMHO Outright banning of Abortion WILL happen, be it from results of this upcoming election, or through the millions of prayers faithful catholics pray each day. Likely the second will aid in the first.

One hopes and prays, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue will be returned to the states to decide. Unless something MAJOR happens to change hearts and minds, I know of at least two or three states that will not ban abortion outright.

 

[steveandersen]

As an RCIA Candidate, the upcoming elections will be my first in which I am required to take in the question of Pro-life candidates. But that means voting Republican, the party where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we can see how “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil”.

How about this…vote Republican for those who actually legislate and vote on laws, and Democrat on all other administrative positions that do not directly write and vote on laws?

Nothing wrong with a split ticket.
It has been my observation that the public fares better when there is divided government…it keeps them honest(er) and closer to the middle when they’re forced to cooperate.
Besides voting a straight party line always seemed to me like letting someone else make up your mind for you. Not every candidate of a party is 100% on every single issue in the plank.

As for the Pro-life issue, while it is extremely important, we are not required to vote solely on that issue. You need to consider the position the person will occupy as well as his views on other issues. If a candidate is pro-life but otherwise a monster or goes against Christian social policies then voting for him may not be the best thing to do.

As for your theory on the legislative/administrative split……
Well, remember that we have a Common Law system in which statutes, legal precedent, and administrative orders all become part of The Law. (That “judges don’t make the law” stuff is just nonsense from folks who didn’t pay attention in civics class) So be careful if you think one office is inherently “safe”.

 

[estesbob]

plank.

As for the Pro-life issue, while it is extremely important, we are not required to vote solely on that issue. You need to consider the position the person will occupy as well as his views on other issues. If a candidate is pro-life but otherwise a monster or goes against Christian social policies then voting for him may not be the best thing to do.

”.

BUT that does not mean that you can vote for a pro-abortion candiate who opposes him. No issue or combination of issues trump the issues of abortion. In the case you mmention above if the oppostion canidate was pro-abortion you could not vote for them regadless of how :good" you thought they were on other issues.

When faced with this situation i either write in a name or dont vote.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

BUT that does not mean that you can vote for a pro-abortion candiate who opposes him. No issue or combination of issues trump the issues of abortion. In the case you mmention above if the oppostion canidate was pro-abortion you could not vote for them regadless of how :good" you thought they were on other issues.

When faced with this situation i either write in a name or dont vote.

An American Independent Party vote would also accomplish a pro-life vote.

 

[Thomas_B]

After all, if one Democrat (w/ all his/her baggage) and a Republican (w/ all his/her baggage) are equally both pro-life and will advocate for the same pro-life policies once in office, may we not also believe that the other baggage comes into play when making a choice?

Right, and that’s the issue I have with some that advocate just voting party line. Some people would just vote Republican even if both the Republican and Democrat are pro-life regardless of their respective baggage because blindly supporting Republicans is somehow supporting the pro-life movement. But baggage *does *matter. If you have a congressman or senator with a history of ethical problems, taking kickbacks, showing favortism etc. then what’s the likelihood this person is going to stay in office and what are they going to do to the party’s reputation? I think we are going to see the effect of that in the upcoming election.

I also think that people who are highly partisan need to carefully watch the issues that their party is supporting and ask themselves if those issues could hurt the pro-life movement in the long run. For instance, no one probably thought at the time that that Iraq War would be going as poorly as it is now. But it turns out that the war has become a drag on the party and is going to be a factor in the upcoming elections. Because of the war and the scandals, Democrats may take control of Congress in November, which would irk pro-life Republicans to no end. So this is something for pro-life Republicans to consider if another war is proposed in the future.

 

[steveandersen]

BUT that does not mean that you can vote for a pro-abortion candiate who opposes him. No issue or combination of issues trump the issues of abortion. In the case you mmention above if the oppostion canidate was pro-abortion you could not vote for them regadless of how :good" you thought they were on other issues.

When faced with this situation i either write in a name or dont vote.

The Bishop’s conference voting guide lists several critical issues; abortion is one of them.
It doesn’t appear to give a hierarchy as to which is more important than the other
(e.g. opposition to preemptive war, the death penalty, etc are given equal billing with opposition to abortion.as are social justice issues)

It unfortunately also doesn’t appear to give guidance as to what specifically to do about candidates with different positions on each of the issues.

So like I said we have to look at all the issues and the office involved.

 

[rlg94086]

Right. That’s why I said there was no conflict between what the USCCB (no heirarchy) and the guidelines from the Pope (life issues first). The Bishops didn’t say their isn’t a heirarchy, they just didn’t provide one. Lucky for us, the Pope had already done it.

The Bishop’s conference voting guide lists several critical issues; abortion is one of them.
It doesn’t appear to give a hierarchy as to which is more important than the other
(e.g. opposition to preemptive war, the death penalty, etc are given equal billing with opposition to abortion.as are social justice issues)

It unfortunately also doesn’t appear to give guidance as to what specifically to do about candidates with different positions on each of the issues.

So like I said we have to look at all the issues and the office involved.

 

[didymus]

IMHO, we should always vote for the best pro-life politician who can win. Third party candidates usually capture less than 10% of the vote with rare exceptions - Jesse Ventura, Joe Lieberman, etc.

I think people are well informed on the “right” to vote third party. There is a list of candidates on the ballot from multiple parties, and they can choose any one of them on the day they vote. The “right” is right in front of their face…unless they can’t read or comprehend.

I would urge everybody to vote for a third party if their first choice’s seat is safe (i.e., if they’l win anyway w/o your vote).
Almost all elections in the US are a sham. Voting for third parties is one way to protest the the GOP’s and Democrats’ monopoly on power.

Isn’t it pitiful that everyone is excited that this year there are actually a dozen House seats, out of 435 up for grabs?

 

[steveandersen]

…
Isn’t it pitiful that everyone is excited that this year there are actually a dozen House seats, out of 435 up for grabs?

Well, that depends
If all seats were hotly contested every 2 years that would provide very little continuity in government.
It would also suggest that the system, the people who are elected, and perhaps even the voters are seriously flawed.

Polls show that while most voters don’t like "congress” in the abstract, they usually are satisfied with their own congressman.

(probably some variation of the “He may be an SOB but he’s MY SOB” rule)

But a couple of dozen seats out of 435 is a little low

Some have suggested that a proportional voting system might provide a little more turnover and a better representation of the district.