Voting for the "lesser" of two evils

[seabird3579]

Which is morally right?

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal, or

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

seabird3579:

Which is morally right?

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal, or

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

Before we apply morality, shouldn’t we first apply logic?

The question arises: why would one vote for a party that, even though it might win, one has determined is not to be trusted to keep its word? Surely a strong conclusion that the party is not to be trusted is enough to set it aside as an electoral choice?

Go with a). After all, elections are won one vote at a time, and who knows what can happen in an election? Ask Harry Truman and Thomas Dewey.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Zerith]

seabird3579:

Which is morally right?

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal, or

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

Move to a country with more [major] political parties… Closest being Canada?

Unfortunately; the more parties, the more socially liberal they are. You end up with one Conservative, maybe a centrist, right or left, and all the rest are socialists, labour, social liberals/democrats etc…

Go for A, for one, in a Democracy, you’re giving more representation to that party. If everyone were to say: “Oh, let’s vote for the party that seems more likely to win” (For this to work, let’s say one party, though not representitive of everyone’s ideology, seemed more likely to win by a slim majority, instead of everyone voting for their own, as everyone has a slim hope that their party will win), you end up with everyone voting that one in.

You didn’t mention anything in favour of B except they have a chance of winning. If they do not appeal to you, why vote them? Voting what you want, what appeals to you, is excersising your Democratic right. The amount of votes they have recieved will be represented, and while they may not have won, may pose a problem to the [troublesome] government, while in other countries who have more major parties a coalition could be formed.

I fail to see the “Lesser of two evils” applying to this.
How is failing to achieve a parliamentary majority “evil”? For that to apply, I would think you would have said something along the lines of: “… Pro life ideals… But support [Insert something morally wrong here]”

 

[seabird3579]

Gerry Hunter:

After all, elections are won one vote at a time, and who knows what can happen in an election? Ask Harry Truman and Thomas Dewey.

Blessings,

Gerry

Thanks, Gerry, my sense is that we should vote the way our well-formed consciences teaches us to vote, and leave the “results” up to God. Even if a candidate that we did not wish to win arises to office because we voted faithfully to our conscience, God is still God. He can work His will with whoever is in office, but we cannot take back a vote in bad conscience. I really posed the question to see how most Catholics believe. I look forward to more responses on the issue.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Another point comes to mind.

A Catholic should not seek to use an election as a chance to be somehow associated with the winner, or the winning side. The ultimate victory is Christ’s, and he has already won it, on the cross. If we are his, we share in that eternal victory.

So it seems to me that the question we face is, “How should I, as a winner with whom Christ has shared his victory, act so that my action is consistent with His gift to me?”

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[wcknight]

Vote for the candidate who upholds your highest moral values or don’t vote for either. I could not vote for Kerry in good concscience BUT I absolutely would not vote for Bush who I consider the village idiot. I left the top of the ballot blank.

 

[koda]

wcknight:

Vote for the candidate who upholds your highest moral values or don’t vote for either. I could not vote for Kerry in good concscience BUT I absolutely would not vote for Bush who I consider the village idiot. I left the top of the ballot blank.

I agree. I think that the reason a lot of eligable voters don’t vote isn’t apathy but the lack of a candidate that they can support.

 

[Digger71]

seabird3579:

Which is morally right?

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal, or

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

If you cannot in good conscience vote for either, do the obvious thing. dont vote.

I refuse to vote. Some of my friends in Belgium also refuse to vote. They accept the fine imposed as the cost of their free choice.

 

[seabird3579]

What does everyone think about the Constitution Party? They are 100% pro-life and no apologies. Why is it, do you think, they didn’t get more press with Catholics?

 

[mlchance]

seabird3579:

Which is morally right?

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal, or

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

Don’t vote for parties. Vote for people worthy of a vote, regardless of their party.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[seabird3579]

mlchance:

Don’t vote for parties. Vote for people worthy of a vote, regardless of their party.

– Mark L. Chance.

Well, I don’t know about that. I couldn’t vote for a candidate that was pro-life if he belonged to a party whose platform was pro-choice when it comes to abortions.

Why do we as Catholics find it so hard to vote for or form a new party that is 100% pro-life and represents other Catholic ideals? It seems that we are “waiting” for someone else to do it and then determine if we’ll throw our vote in. I’m speaking for myself as well as others. It just seems like the issues are too important to leave to chance.

 

[mary_bobo]

mlchance:

Don’t vote for parties. Vote for people worthy of a vote, regardless of their party.

– Mark L. Chance.

But if the person you vote for does not have a majority party behind him, precious little will get done.

 

[Catholic2003]

seabird3579:

Which is morally right?

a) to vote for the party that most represents your highest pro-life ideals though their chances to win would be minimal, or

b) vote for a party that has more promise of winning but you’re not sure they would really do what they say they will?

Both alternatives are allowed morally. Which one you choose is up to your personal beliefs.

 

[seabird3579]

mary bobo:

But if the person you vote for does not have a majority party behind him, precious little will get done.

I’ve heard that sentiment quite a lot but it makes me think that we’re saying we have greater faith in men than we do in God.

Afterall, IF it is God’s will to save the lives of innocent babies, would He not be with the candidate that professed and believed this also?

Conversely, would He not be against those who were not putting innocent lives first?

If what you are trying to “accomplish” goes against God’s will, what do you really accomplish?

 

[Philip_P]

Vote for the candidate you believe will accomplish the most good. I think that’s a better approach than voting for the “least bad.”

This does imply a duty to do quite a bit of work, though. You not only need to acquaint yourself with the candidate’s views, but also get a sense of his or her ability. Just as important as what a candidate promises is the ability to fulfill that promise.

In the end, voting is a prudential judgement. No one can see the future - always be wary of those who say you must vote for one candidate or **must not **vote for another candidate.

Prayer is always key. Also, a good source for informing yourself is:
www.vote-smart.org. They have candidate voting records, public speeches, biographical information, as well as links to US civics basics such as how bills become law, etc.

 

[seabird3579]

Philip P:

Vote for the candidate you believe will accomplish the most good. I think that’s a better approach than voting for the “least bad.”.

In different times that would have seemed to make the most “common” sense. However, if I understand Catholic doctrine correctly, both popes - John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have specifically said that voting for candidates that are pro-life when it comes to the abortion issue is of the highest importance. In fact, they have both emphasized how all the other “good” issues rank relatively distantly compared to being Pro-Life.

I happen to agree with them. It bothers and frustrates me that so many well-meaning and “good” Catholics can’t seem to make the distinction. They seem to lump all good things together with being pro-life, OR worse yet, they seem to think that if you do enough ‘other’ Good Things – well that will balance out a candidate not necessarily being pro-life per the abortion issue.

Isn’t this Moral Relativism at its Worst?

 

[vern_humphrey]

seabird3579:

I’ve heard that sentiment quite a lot but it makes me think that we’re saying we have greater faith in men than we do in God.

Afterall, IF it is God’s will to save the lives of innocent babies, would He not be with the candidate that professed and believed this also?

Conversely, would He not be against those who were not putting innocent lives first?

It’s not God’s fault we have abortion in this country, it’s our fault.

 

[seabird3579]

vern humphrey:

It’s not God’s fault we have abortion in this country, it’s our fault.

The discussion is about how to end abortion in this country. No one has said it is God’s fault. Most reasonable people seem to understand that it is our fault. Question is: how, as a society, should we go about ending what we have started. My position is that it is theologically sound to vote for the candidate that puts ending abortion as his highest priority. I believe this is God’s will for our nation. Others have expressed the view that voting for a candidate that does good things is good enough (to paraphrase). I simply brought up the fact that it seems the most recent Popes would disagree with the latter. Therefore, the question remains, why are “Catholics” wasting their time voting for any other candidate besides he who is not unabashedly and unapologetically–against abortion.

We can’t even use the excuse of the necessity to vote for the party that has the likelihood of winning. That would be the ends justifying the means. We know that is morally wrong. Therefore, we should vet every candidate and be sure they are pro-life and their record prooves they will work to end abortion.

 

[Philip_P]

seabird3579:

In different times that would have seemed to make the most “common” sense. However, if I understand Catholic doctrine correctly, both popes - John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have specifically said that voting for candidates that are pro-life when it comes to the abortion issue is of the highest importance. In fact, they have both emphasized how all the other “good” issues rank relatively distantly compared to being Pro-Life.

I happen to agree with them. It bothers and frustrates me that so many well-meaning and “good” Catholics can’t seem to make the distinction. They seem to lump all good things together with being pro-life, OR worse yet, they seem to think that if you do enough ‘other’ Good Things – well that will balance out a candidate not necessarily being pro-life per the abortion issue.

Isn’t this Moral Relativism at its Worst?

Being pro-life should mean you actually want to see fewer abortion. Simply having a “pro-life” position, without a serious possibility of achieving results, is not prolife.

Since none of us can see the future, voting is always a prudential judgment. Anyone who claims to know, for a fact, that a certain candidate will reduce abortion is deluded or lying. We make our best guess, but absolute certainty is not something we are afforded this side of Heaven.

 

[seabird3579]

Philip P:

Anyone who claims to know, for a fact, that a certain candidate will reduce abortion is deluded or lying.

When a candidate runs under a pro-life banner and indicates that he will administer from a pro-life stance, then proceeds to make excuses like, “the country is not yet ready to be rid of pro-abortion laws”, then THAT

candidate is a liar and a deceiver, and his character should be duly noted for the next election.