Voting the lesser of two evils

[TARRAT]

I was wondering what people here thought. I find that there aren’t any politicians that I agree with 100%. I often tell people that I don’t think that I could even vote for myself if I ran for office. That being said, I think that if you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, you are essentially voting for the “Most Evil”. What say ye?

 

[St_Francis]

I think it depends on how much less the evil is and what the evil is. I am using abortion simply because it is clear: for example, if there is one politician who is totally for abortion on demand funded by the government and one who is for restricting abortion to cases of rape and incest, then I’d vote for the latter. But if the latter were running against someone who was totally against abortion, I’d vote for the new latter.

If two were running who were both pro-abortion, both planning to nominate bad Supreme Court Justices, only one was for government funding of abortion and the other not, then I would vote third party–the lesser-ness of evil would be insufficient for me to vote for the one against government funding.

The thing is that I see voting as a discrete act performed by an individual. In the last case I posited, it is true that my voting third party would possibly lead to the worse guy’s being voted in, but at some point, I have to do the right thing myself and let God take care of the rest.

 

[Bookcat]

Read the Catholic Answers voting guide --that can be of help.

That being said.

One does not vote for the “lesser” evil - but* for good*

 

[chero23]

I have decided not to vote anymore, nobody does what they say

 

[estesbob]

I was wondering what people here thought. I find that there aren’t any politicians that I agree with 100%. I often tell people that I don’t think that I could even vote for myself if I ran for office. That being said, I think that if you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, you are essentially voting for the “Most Evil”. What say ye?

Archbishop Chaput says it is NOT voting for the lesser of two evil. it is voting to lessen evil.

 

[TARRAT]

Read the Catholic Answers voting guide --that can be of help.

That being said.

One does not vote for the “lesser” evil - but* for good*

But won’t voting for the lesser of two evils by definition mean that you are voting for at a partial good.

 

[estesbob]

But won’t voting for the lesser of two evils by definition mean that you are voting for at a partial good.

Yes-and if you dont vote you cede the political playing field to those who are more likely to support evil

 

[jritenour]

Yes-and if you dont vote you cede the political playing field to those who are more likely to support evil

IF… that vote can be proven to matter.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

We will never agree with others 100% nor will we ever find a 100% perfect person to vote for. That does not in any way negate the need to support candidates most likely to pursue Christian principles.

Read about the 5 Non-negotiables:

politicalresponsibility.com/voterguide.htm

 

[sw85]

I was wondering what people here thought. I find that there aren’t any politicians that I agree with 100%. I often tell people that I don’t think that I could even vote for myself if I ran for office. That being said, I think that if you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, you are essentially voting for the “Most Evil”. What say ye?

You could always vote for “neither of the two” or just forego voting, either in that particular race or that election altogether.

The problem with “voting for the lesser of two evils” is that you are still voting for evil, and whether or not your candidate wins, you will still be a person who deliberately and knowingly endorsed evil – the spiritual harm to you is, in other words, outcome-independent. Sometimes the harm is worth it (and measuring the proportionality of harm to good, when the means are intrinsically OK, is a matter of prudence) but very often it isn’t.

Yes-and if you dont vote you cede the political playing field to those who are more likely to support evil

There is really no reason to believe this is true. There has never before been, to my knowledge, an election decided by one vote, and even if there were our electoral system would not be able to resolve it with any certainty. Consider the 2000 election, which couldn’t resolve a margin of over 500 votes.

So if I stay home it will make literally no difference, unless (and only unless) the race is seriously local with fairly few voters.

The usual counterargument here – “if everyone thought like you, then it would make a difference!” – is actually an explicit concession of my point: it is only in a world where everyone thinks like me that my vote would make a difference.

 

[phil19034]

Archbishop Chaput says it is NOT voting for the lesser of two evil. it is voting to lessen evil.

That’s my Archbishop!!!

 

[TK421]

Archbishop Chaput says it is NOT voting for the lesser of two evil. it is voting to lessen evil.

This makes perfect sense. “Choosing between the lesser of two evils” is a fallacious statement, because if we want to get really technical, there hasn’t been a single ruler in the history of history that has been perfectly good. You pick the candidate that endeavors to lessen the amount of evil based on the status quo.

The U.S. has a two-party system, which stinks, but if you’re voting for pro-death candidates, then you are part of the problem. If you aren’t showing up to the polls, you are part of the problem and you are responsible for men like Obama being in office.

 

[JRKH]

Yes-and if you dont vote you cede the political playing field to those who are more likely to support evil

IF… that vote can be proven to matter.

Just curious - How does one “prove” that a vote does or does not matter??

Peace
James

 

[Lancer]

IF… that vote can be proven to matter.

We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God’s children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue–or lack thereof–is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

[Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics 34, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 1998]

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

 

[mikekle]

I have decided not to vote anymore, nobody does what they say

I feel the same way, the last time I voted was in 1992, but I still follow politics and keep an eye on all the candidates, and the ones I would vote for, would never stand a chance of being elected, and are usually in other parties.
In todays worlds, it is either republicans or democrats that get elected, no other parties stand a chance, its pretty much useless for them to run!

However I do realize all political parties eventually die out and are replaced, so maybe in time, when we get another party that is capable of putting up people that can be elected, I may start voting again.

whenever there is an election though, and I see who has won and by how many votes, EVERY single time, if I had voted, it would not have mattered anyway.

There is just too much corruption in politics, and unless you have serious money to hire lobbying firms, you really dont stand a chance at accomplishing anything, IMO, lobbying needs to be banned entirely, all it is is legalized bribery/extortion.

 

[sw85]

If you aren’t showing up to the polls, you are part of the problem and you are responsible for men like Obama being in office.

On the contrary, my refusal to vote reflects my refusal to endorse the homicidal political consensus which currently exists in this country. I will not burn this particular pinch of incense to Caesar.

Just curious - How does one “prove” that a vote does or does not matter??

Peace
James

One could for instance point to any election of any importance which was decided by a one-vote margin, and which was not promptly swallowed by lawsuits.

 

[JRKH]

I feel the same way, the last time I voted was in 1992, but I still follow politics and keep an eye on all the candidates, and the ones I would vote for, would never stand a chance of being elected, and are usually in other parties.

And their chances will never improve if people don’t vote for them just because they “never stand a chance of being elected”.

In todays worlds, it is either republicans or democrats that get elected, no other parties stand a chance, its pretty much useless for them to run!

However I do realize all political parties eventually die out and are replaced, so maybe in time, when we get another party that is capable of putting up people that can be elected, I may start voting again.

And by not voting for the candidates you really like all you do is help perpetuate the status quo.

In short this outlook is self defeating.

whenever there is an election though, and I see who has won and by how many votes, EVERY single time, if I had voted, it would not have mattered anyway.

Wrong - and I say that for two reasons.

1. If you vote for who you like it encourages that person / party - especially third party candidates. Your vote is not lost in the throng.
2. Most elections are not wan my any great margin. The more votes that go to third parties, the greater influence such parties can have. The reasons being that if the major parties see votes draining off to other parties, they start modifying their agenda in order to lure voters back.

I don’t say the above to single you out…I read about this same outlook and every season I respond as I have here.

We have two possible ways to truly influence change. Through the voting booth and the political process - or through rebellion.
Rebellions are extremely hard to control and once out of hand, who knows what the outcome would be.
I would much prefer a more peaceful route…If that is still possible…

There is just too much corruption in politics, and unless you have serious money to hire lobbying firms, you really dont stand a chance at accomplishing anything, IMO, lobbying needs to be banned entirely, all it is is legalized bribery/extortion.

I agree with this to an extent although ultimately I don’t think it is the “corruption” that is the biggest problem…Instead it is the bureaucracy - the more the actual governance is isolated from the voters the more dangerous it becomes. Bureaucracies do this, they isolate the actual governance from the actual voters. Theoretically they are answerable to congress who is answerable to us - but now there are so many layers and interconnections and they are so pervasive that Congress simply cannot police them - and doesn’t really try.

That’s my 2 cents…

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

Actually Cicero wrote, *Primum minima de malis *(Of evils choose the LEAST.)

 

[ProVobis]

And their chances will never improve if people don’t vote for them just because they “never stand a chance of being elected”.

And by not voting for the candidates you really like all you do is help perpetuate the status quo.

Precisely. And who’s to say that candidate won’t be encouraged to run again or be an influence like Ron Paul was back in 1988?

In the heat of the moment, electors fail to remember that their vote has long-term impact.

 

[TARRAT]

I believe it was said that people who decided to stay at home actually decided the last election. Each individual vote mattered little but by not voting for the lesser of two evils we got the “Most Evil”… Pro-abortion, anti- catholic,… you can add to the list if you wish. But those who didn’t vote in the last election actually helped the present occupant of the White House to another term.