Voting Dilemma

[Adeodatus]

Never again will I use the lesser of two evils strategy in voting. The lesser is still evil. I understand the Church’s teaching, but it doesn’t matter when the outcome is the same–the encouragement of evil, in this case abortion.

Please note that the USCCB’s document on voting is not Church teaching.

 

[aurora77]

In your previous note you said:* “Never again will I use the lesser of two evils strategy in voting.”* Then, we were talking about there being a lesser of two evils difference between A and B. Clearly if there is no difference whatever between the two then I would agree with your choice, but you have resolved the dilemma by changing the conditions - which is less a resolution than an evasion.

Ender

No, not an evasion. I just didn’t read your earlier posts as carefully as I should have. I misread your stance on the OPs dilemma.

That doesn’t change the dilemma that results from having to select from candidates who support intrinsically evil acts. In the example of a Guiliani vs Obama election, I would have had to abstain, or vote third party because both openly support abortion. A person voting for them is thus supporting abortion, whether by active intent or not. I can’t get around that fact, so will never allow myself to dance around the issue again. Since there is no requirement to vote for a less morally objectionable candidate, I can then vote with a clear conscience.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I voted 3rd party in the last Presidential election. In fact, not just for President, but for a couple of our local offices as well. When I made the decision to do this, I was troubled for a couple days, but by the time election day rolled around, I confidently went into the booth to cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin. When I was troubled, it was because I thought to myself that I am not making full use of my vote, but in reality, after some thought, I decided it was an honest vote. Of all the people appearing on the ballot in the State of Nevada, he was the candidate which I felt would do the best job of running the country from the standpoint of morals and ethics. And if you can trust a person morally and ethically, even though they may lack some training in economics and dimplomacy, etc., he’s going to hire good, decent people to deligate those responsibilities to. Also, it served as a vote against the unwieldy, and strangely cobbled together concilliatory platforms of the Democratic and Republicans parties which have both tried to pack so many ethically conflicting principles into their parties in the interest of keeping the most well monied supporters, that each party, in their way, have lost complete sight of whatever it was that bound them to begin with.

This is a pluralistic society, and I know that no one party can please a large enough group of people to be favored, but they could try a little harder to represent one unified set of ideals, if they’re going to be a “party”, after all. Or why have the concept of parties at all.

I want one of the major parties in the United States to be against abortion. Not because of the way it’s playing in the polls, or because of Roe vs. Wade, or whatever, but because the platform of the core members of the political party believe that to procure an abortion is to commit murder. Not as a concession to one wing of the party in order to keep them on board, in exchange for being able to turn around and say, blatantly abuse and stretch the limits of just war doctrine (just as a hypothetical example), but because your whole party values the dignity of human life. That it’s the underlying principle of anything else your party stands for. That would be a party I could believe in. The economics would be good hearted, because it would be based on the premise the life is a good thing, and that if living married couples wish to be able to bring as many children into their marriage as is God’s will for them, they the economic system should be geared towards a larger poplulation. This would be mean that the party would believe in encouraging a housing, agriculture, manufacturing, and service industry which paid people enough money, and generated enough money from good hard working people that houses and food and U.S. manufactured food would cost less, while one of the marital partners in the family worked hard and made enough money to pay the realistic, economy based mortgage, drive a well built American car, and feed, clothe and educate his children who would then also be productive members of society vibrant with the love of human life, proximity to one another. It goes on and on. You can apply the principles of the respect of human life to any aspect of your political party.

Anyway. There are good voters guides right here on the website. Pray. Use your conscience, and just stop buying into the idea that you MUST vote for a mainstream candidate in order to make a difference.

It may not happen in my lifetime, but there are more and more people every day realizing that there must be a change if our country is to return, and then thrive as they type of nation it was always dreamed we could be, Not utopia. But reasonable, and based on the sanctity and dignity of human life.

More independents will be giving the big parties a run for their money. Some party with the heart and spirit of what the tea parties perhaps supposed and hoped themselves to be before becoming the newest affiliate branch of the GOP.

I am actually optimistic. I wasn’t the only guy voting for Baldwin, even in the very line I was in at the polling center. We’re on the way.

But more people must have the courage of their convictions, and take the road less travelled, if it is ever to become the road of choice. The more people willing to speak up, the more who will listen. You speak loudly if you’re so strong in your convictions that you’re willing to vote outside of a major party. You could even speak louder I suppose, if you stayed IN the party that you favor, (if there is one), and just not vote for the candidates they give you, but vote for someone independent who more closely reflects the idea of what you want the GOP or the DP to be. If your party’s primaries yield some moderate blowhard, make a big showing of being a Republicans voting for candidate X in the Constititution party, because he or she is more of a Republican (in your view), than the stock your party keeps putting their money behind. It lets the party know they’re not taking their constituencies seriously.

I freely admit, by the way, that this last bit of advice, I don’t follow, because I wasn’t firmly tied to a party to begin with. I spent the early part of my voting life in the GOP, and the latter 1/2 in the Dems before becoming independent, and really meaning it a few years back. I personally don’t want to save either party and don’t care of those particular two parties just die off by attrition to some more vital parties as time goes on, so there’s not much they could do to woo me anymore. I’m just thinking of those who still have a loyalty because of birthright or some such thing. At least be a voice that helps change your own party.

Good luck to all, however you decide in your local races, and the next general race in just two more years.

God bless,

Steven

 

[Petergee]

Please note that the USCCB’s document on voting is not Church teaching.

I take it you mean, it’s not necessarily infallible. But any formal doctrinal directive by your bishop alone or together with other bishops, heck even by your parish priest, is at least in a sense, Church teaching. You are not free to simply disregard it as “just their opinion” unless it obviously conflicts with the teaching of their hierarchical superiors.

 

[Ender]

In the example of a Guiliani vs Obama election, I would have had to abstain, or vote third party because both openly support abortion.

This is the perfect example to use to highlight the dilemma.

A person voting for them is thus supporting abortion, whether by active intent or not. I can’t get around that fact, so will never allow myself to dance around the issue again.

This is simply incorrect. No vote we cast would change the inevitable result that the next president would be pro-abortion. That we could not change that fact did not mean, however, that our vote would have no effect on the abortion issue. Clearly Obama and the Democrats are more rabidly pro-abortion than was Giuliani, and pro-abortion initiatives under Obama have gone much further than they would have under Giuliani. Are you indifferent to that? Voting for Giuliani would mean a vote to lessen the damage; it would certainly not mean voting for the damage itself.

Since there is no requirement to vote for a less morally objectionable candidate, I can then vote with a clear conscience.

Perhaps so, but it is wrong to say that those would have voted for Giuliani would be guilty of supporting abortion. The Church doesn’t teach anything that leads to that conclusion. Everyone who would have voted for Giuliani with that intention would justifiably have had a clear conscience as well.

Ender

 

[FOFEBA]

We seem to be confused about abortion, here.

What a politician believes is not very relevant to whether a woman decides to have an abortion. If you make it illegal, then it will be done illegally, if it is done. If you make it legal, then it will be done legally, if it is done.

This is an area where Buddhism seems to have a better grasp on human nature than Christianity. If you make something illegal which people are going to do, then all you do is create criminals. You don’t stop the behavior.

So much time is wasted on politics, when the core issue is individual morality. Focus on the core issue, and then the politics will take care of itself, as it will reflect the core values.

 

[mangy_dog]

We’re having a gubernatorial race here. While this very much simplifies things, on the issue of abortion, here’s what we’re looking at:

1. The GOP candidate has taken the “doesn’t like abortion but feels it is a difficult choice best left to the mother and her doctor, etc., etc.” position. He’s by far the most likely candidate to win, as the GOP is by far the strongest party here. He’s also violently hurling money into the campaign, which I don’t like, but means that he’s going to be by far the best known candidate.

Frankly, in addition to his wishy washy abortion position, there’s some other things I don’t care for much about him.

1. The Dem candidate is for “preserving a woman’s right to choose”. In other words, her position is practically indistinguishable from the GOP candidates. She maintains some positions on other issues that I like a bit more than the GOP candidates, but otherwise she’s nothing to get too excited about.
2. A GOP member is running a write in campaign, after failing to get on the ballot as the candidate for the “Constitution Party”. I’m somewhat familiar with this fellow, who is interesting, and he’s a mix of traditional conservative views, some Tea Party type views, and just some novel views. He’s the only candidate who is decidedly and openly opposed to abortion. He’s also the only candidate who is a Catholic. Interesting (and a mere observation on my part and nothing more) he’s the only candidate in this very Caucasian state who is black. The Dem candidate is a woman.

What to do I do about this moral quandary? I’d sort of like to vote for the write in guy, but I feel his candidacy is doomed, and some of his more Tea Party type of views worry me. On the other hand, he’s the only one who isn’t openly in favor of keeping the killing rolling, or who is so wishy washy on it that we don’t know what his real view is.

I share your dilemma my friend,

Whether it was right or wrong…this last election, I didn’t vote. I think what happened is that I refused to being reduced to “choosing the lesser of two evils”.

By this I don’t mean that the candidates are evil…I just didn’t want my choice to be evil.