Voting in Elections

[TheLittleLady]

And here are the “9 Non-Negotiables” per Fr. Matthew Schneider, LC http://www.catholicstand.com/9-non-negotiables/

The only one that mentions torture, racism, etc. Much better!!

 

[DarkLight]

If there is no candidate worth casting your vote for, then skip that vote, but keep voting on the other issues on the ballot!

Yes - keep in mind that in the U.S. you do not need to fill out every election on the ballot. Your votes in other elections will still count.

There’s actually a benefit, I think, to turning in a ballot that is empty or partly filled, over simply not showing up. A voter who turns up and doesn’t vote still stands out as someone who bothered to show up to the polls - it’s a clear expression of dissatisfaction, rather than simple disengagement.

 

[MPat]

I know that the church teaches not to vote for politicians who have morally objectionable stances, but if all the political candidates have morally objectionable stances is it better simply not to vote? This may ruffle some feathers, but while the Republican party has bee the main pro-life party, I see the republican party drifting toward things that degrade human dignity in other ways besides abortion/euthanasia. I know we aren’t voting for a pope in political elections, but sin is sin and voting for it make us complacent to it and this really troubles me.

First, tactical voting does not seem to be prohibited. Sometimes it might be a good idea to vote for the “second-best” candidate, who is worse than some “best” candidate, to minimise the chances of victory of still worse candidate.

Second, sometimes not voting can result in good outcome (for example, election is invalidated and new, better, candidates can be proposed). That also seems to be allowed, for such “not voting” probably counts as “Participation in community life”, which, after all, is the reason for which Church encourages using the right to vote.

In fact, sometimes Popes have encouraged Catholics not to vote in a specific election or referendum. For example, Pius IX encouraged not to vote in Italian election of 1861 (see 1861 Italian general election - Wikipedia).

Third, if you end up with really bad options (let’s say, a Communist and a Nazi), you can start calculating how evil one or another regime will be, how likely a coup d’etat would be in one or another case…

Yes, in such cases Catholics can end up making different choices without sinning.

But all that does not mean that a Catholic who, to take a historical example, has a choice between Hitler and Hindenburg, can avoid to vote for Hindenburg using excuses like “Neither candidate supports the whole Catholic Social Teaching.”, “Hitler would be more effective in fighting unemployment, and unemployment is an important issue.”. And, of course, in that election Catholics and Zentrum party definitely supported Hindenburg.

And now you have to decide which considerations actually apply in your case. For example, what exactly are “things that degrade human dignity in other ways besides abortion/euthanasia” you had in mind? How weighty are those issues? Are they more like Holocaust or more like unemployment?

 

[Mary67]

It’s funny to read all the replies here because it illustrates how much America has changed in under 100 years. Historically, Catholics have voted for Democrats. But obviously, there are major concerns now that they have an anti-life platform. But, the political climate in our country has caused a lot of people to approach politics as a quasi-religion (regardless of party). I would love people to be as outraged at the disrespect for the Eucharist in today’s churches as they are about a tax bill or gun legislation. In fact, disrespect for the Eucharist deserves more outrage than either of those issues. And, I can’t remember which saint said it, but it was once said that human beings are the second most sacred thing on earth beside the Eucharist. My point though is that people are willing to defend politics as though it’s the Holy Bible its self, all the while disregarding their own spiritual flaws and violation of the first and second commandments. I don’t see how not voting for corrupt individuals is a negative thing. I think the only thing we can do is to beg God to save our country from evil until a morally upright candidate appears on the scene.

 

[signit]

I don’t believe the issues are that “plain and simple.” There are a number of complicating factors.

1. Someone who says he is against abortion may not actually do anything about it.
2. Someone who says he is against abortion may, in my judgement, present an existential threat to our nation.
3. A candidate who is actually sincere about his opposition to abortion may also hold positions that I also consider of primary moral importance. Normally such positions would be less determinative than the candidate’s position on abortion, but due to political realities, I might judge that the candidate has a much better chance of acting effectively on that other position than acting on abortion. This assessment of the probabilities involved figure into my weighing the benefits vs the liabilities of voting for a particular candidate to the extent that it seems more reasonable to vote based on that “other issue.” In other words, he may promise me he will oppose abortion, but if abortion does not come up, but there is an issue about humane treatment of prisoners that is certain to come up, I can be effective in the second issue, but not the first issue. That would make a difference.

These scenarios are interesting.

I’ll add one of my own here:

1. You have two candidates in the primary election. Candidate A, the frontrunner, supports abortion rights but agrees with most of my other beliefs. Candidate B opposes abortion but I have reason to think would lose the general election (possibly because they have no funding, or no name recognition, or have some other huge negative) and I know if B won it would hand the general election to Candidate X, who supports abortion rights and a host of other things I don’t support.

So in that case I think I’d be justified in going for A.