Last election, I wrote in a candidate I thought was acceptable.
I thought the case was that neither candidate was at all acceptable, so I don’t know what else you do.
I was not voting in anything like a swing state, however, so I was really only refraining from contributing to the “margin of popular vote,” (which is why I think that metric is somewhat meaningless).
Even had I been voting in a swing state, though, the choices were both so bad I think I would have been forced to do the same thing.
Trump for sure. More Christian values than most politicians combined.
Excepting that he has distinguished himself even among those seeking public office in the category of spreading brazen falsehoods. I know who the Father of Lies is.
When the “most Christian” candidate has made it his practice to
get on the radio and try to impress a “shock jock” by speaking about women in ways that make a farce of purity and when he habitually says things even after his election that fly on the face of facts that anyone can easily verify without the help of the “media establishment,” that says to me I need to vote for someone who isn’t going to win, because the nation has obviously decided that a truly Christian candidate isn’t politically palatable.
I don’t know what else to conclude. Could I have chosen among the Caesars? No. OK, then if my choice is voting for an unacceptable candidate who might win and an acceptable one who is not reasonably likely to approach winning, I still have to vote my conscience. My conscience says it is better to cast a vote that the majority will ignore than to vote for a candidate who isn’t acceptable in some minimal degree.
