Are you going to vote? How do you decide?

[LucyStoner]

Some states that are not usually swing states are considered battlegrounds this year.

 

It is an odd election year for sure and I'm one who really wishes there was a viable third option.

Third parties need to build from the ground up, not just consign themselves to running sacrificial lambs every four years for the highest office in the land. I've backed third parties in local races (and once for a Congress). I've also worked to back strong, kickass, non-milquetoast candidates within my party. Besides not being viable, I don't think most of the third party options are, without working up, vaguely qualified to be president. More than a third party, I wish for a fundamental restructuring of the entire political landscape so that we had more than two parties represented at every level of government. People who really want a third party need to work to build it, not just vote for it. Party building is hard work and that's part of why we only have the two.

[Innisfree]

I am in a swing state. In most years, I would vote based on philosophical principles, with an eye to Supreme Court composition. In this year, I will vote for the candidate I think will do the least harm to the nation.

[SKL]

Never before have I wished so hard for a viable third-party candidate.  ;)

 

In all likelihood, I will vote.  I decide based on what I know of the history of the candidates - what I know to be true, not what the attack ads etc. say.  Thankfully I have a really good memory and a strong BS filter.  Which, btw, is needed on both sides in this and every other election.

[Crimson Wife]

I'll definitely vote for my party's candidate this year. Minnesota tends to lean one way most of the time, but enough websites are reporting it as a swing state this year that I'm not taking any chances. The candidate I'll be voting for certainly wasn't my first (or second or third...) choice, but I believe the other candidate would be downright dangerous. 

 

And after reading today that Clinton is leading in Georgia, I think the map this year might look quite different than it has in the past. Anything could happen. 

 

That's a scare tactic by the media. MN will go "blue" like it always does and GA will go "red" like it always does.

 

I hate how the traditional media and the blogosphere use spin, hype, and flat-out lying to try and manipulate Americans into doing what the authors want.

[The Girls' Mom]

I will vote.  Too many people have fought and died for my right to vote, so I feel obligated.  

 

I do not belong to a party, in that I feel obligated to vote along party lines.  I'm currently registered Republican, but that was a last minute decision so I could vote against Trump in the Primary.  Normally I'm registered as Independent.  I will vote for the candidate that I feel would do the best job out of the options available.

[purpleowl]

Right now, I am changing my mind multiple times a day about how I will vote. Will I vote for a third-party candidate? Or will I "hold my nose" and vote for the major-party candidate I think is just slightly less bad than the other one? At the moment I'm leaning toward the latter option, partly because while that major-party candidate and I disagree on the issue that's most important to me, the third-party candidate I'm considering has other positions that I seriously disagree with. Sigh. Oh, and I'm in a swing state. 

 

I do think that the "don't vote third party because it's like a vote for [Major Party You Don't Usually Vote For]" thing is a little different this year, since you have people on BOTH sides considering third-party votes. It's not like all the third-party votes are going to spoil one party's chances, even in swing states.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of time for all the candidates to say and do more stupid things before the election, so I'm not making a final decision yet.

[gardenmom5]

I have many local races I feel are important to vote.

 

as for the national . . . .it's currently a toss-up between the perceived lesser of two evils and a direct asteroid strike.

[hornblower]

That's a scare tactic by the media. MN will go "blue" like it always does and GA will go "red" like it always does.

 

I hate how the traditional media and the blogosphere use spin, hype, and flat-out lying to try and manipulate Americans into doing what the authors want.

 

I think the current polling shows MN firmly blue but GA is a pale red according to Silver

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/

 

Realistically I think we're still too far off for polling to be firm or predictive. 

[eternalsummer]

I'm not affiliated with any political party. 

 

I'm a Christian, and I can't willfully and deliberately support evil. I don't expect perfection in a candidate, but I draw the line at supporting anyone who *openly endorses* evil. Not judging anyone else here, but I don't see how I personally can justify that before God. I have to ask myself, "How much evil does God need me to support to accomplish His will? How much evil does God want me to support in the hopes that good may come of it?" 

 

For too long much of my worldview was determined by American ideals rather than Biblical ones, and I'm trying to change that. 

 

I believe our duty in life is simple. "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." If I do that, I don't need to worry and fret about the future. “It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings." We'll get exactly what we deserve as a country.

 

 

I am not religious, but this is pretty similar to how I feel.

 

One candidate has a lot of positions/views I consider just incorrect (re: the economy, etc.) and a few positions/views I consider morally reprehensible (Iargely social issues).  

 

The other candidate I think is actually dangerous to the interests of the country in an external sort of way.

 

I cannot in good conscience vote for either one.

 

The third party candidates are non-starters in terms of positions (plus, they're not going to win, so why bother?).  

 

Thus I will not vote this year.  I am in CO so not a swing state anyway, really - it might go red, but if it does then Trump probably wins pretty handily as there are many closer states.

 

 

I did see a *great* image on 4chan a few weeks ago - a picture of a bumper sticker that said "Meteor 2016"

 

Kind of cynical, but there you have it.

[purplejackmama]

I am not of either party. I am an unaffiliated voter. I vote for the person I deem most capable. I think too many people get caught up "I have to vote my party", "the other party is the bad guy", etc. I don't think it's really that hard to make a decision this year.

I think it's an awful year to try to decide between the lesser of these 2 evils. But I'm a staunch independent.

[Pam in CT]

re Georgia

 

I think the current polling shows MN firmly blue but GA is a pale red according to Silver

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/

Realistically I think we're still too far off for polling to be firm or predictive. 

Yeah, the Atlanta Journal Constituon's poll had Clinton up by 4 yesterday, but so far as I know that's the only Georgia poll since the DNC, so it's just the one data point.

 

And it's still waaaaaaayyyy too early to think polling is predictive, even to the extent it ever is.

[Mergath]

That's a scare tactic by the media. MN will go "blue" like it always does and GA will go "red" like it always does.

 

I hate how the traditional media and the blogosphere use spin, hype, and flat-out lying to try and manipulate Americans into doing what the authors want.

 

Not necessarily. There have been enough surprises during the presidential elections over the last twenty years that I don't feel comfortable talking about what will "always" happen. And this year has completely gone off the rails. Even some of the "authors" are flabbergasted and stepping out at this point.

 

Also, one of our senators here in MN won the 2008 election by 225 votes out of just under three million cast. I refuse to take anything for granted.

[Mergath]

I think the current polling shows MN firmly blue but GA is a pale red according to Silver

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/

 

Realistically I think we're still too far off for polling to be firm or predictive. 

 

The polls for MN so far have showed everything from Clinton down by five to up by thirteen. They do seem to be trending blue, but we're not solid enough for me to feel comfortable voting third-party just to make a point.

[ktgrok]

I'm not affiliated with any political party. 

 

I'm a Christian, and I can't willfully and deliberately support evil. I don't expect perfection in a candidate, but I draw the line at supporting anyone who *openly endorses* evil. Not judging anyone else here, but I don't see how I personally can justify that before God.

 

As a Catholic, I'm blessed to have the words of our former Pope to help me as I hash things out. This quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict, gives me guidance, because I very much feel there are proportionate reasons in this election. 

 

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

 

Now, this is different from voting for someone BECAUSE of their evil stance, which he clarifies here:

 

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

[LucyStoner]

Not necessarily. There have been enough surprises during the presidential elections over the last twenty years that I don't feel comfortable talking about what will "always" happen. And this year has completely gone off the rails. Even some of the "authors" are flabbergasted and stepping out at this point.

 

Also, one of our senators here in MN won the 2008 election by 225 votes out of just under three million cast. I refuse to take anything for granted.

Yeah, my state is firmly in one column for President but we have had statewide races that came down to less than 200 votes. We've had at least two instances of a party funding a third party to try and be a spoiler to the other major party. This is one reason of many I don't bother with third party options at the highest levels.

[zoobie]

That's a scare tactic by the media. MN will go "blue" like it always does and GA will go "red" like it always does.

 

I hate how the traditional media and the blogosphere use spin, hype, and flat-out lying to try and manipulate Americans into doing what the authors want.

 

You mean getting people out to vote? The horror. There are actual polls behind the numbers. 

[luuknam]

big non-swing states like CA, TX, NY, etc.

 

I'm in NY, and it looks like it might be much more swingish this year than most years. This election year is weird.

 

Not that I can vote. I have started considering that maybe I should start voting in Dutch elections, even though it's been almost a decade since I've been there and have no immediate plans to move back.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I will not vote for the lesser of the two evils. I will either vote third party or write in.

[ktgrok]

I will not vote for the lesser of the two evils. I will either vote third party or write in.

 

 

I'm always curious about this. Is this an absolute statement? I mean, would there be some point where one was SO bad that you WOULD vote for the lesser of two evils. Say if it was one of todays candidates versus Hitler? Would there be moral value in letting Hitler come to power if you could stop him, or would the clear conscience of not voting for the other candidate be worth it?

[SproutMamaK]

The US election has me wishing I could vote, and I'm Canadian.  :lol:  Neither are great options that I could get whole-heartedly behind, but one is in a "I really do not trust this person" kind of way, and the other is in a "It doesn't even matter that I'm not American because this person could literally blow up half the world" kind of way. I'll take misgivings over the apocalypse any day.

[luuknam]

The US election has me wishing I could vote, and I'm Canadian.  :lol:  Neither are great options that I could get whole-heartedly behind, but one is in a "I really do not trust this person" kind of way, and the other is in a "It doesn't even matter that I'm not American because this person could literally blow up half the world" kind of way. I'll take misgivings over the apocalypse any day.

 

I think a lot of the world wishes they could vote in this election, for the same reasons.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I'm always curious about this. Is this an absolute statement? I mean, would there be some point where one was SO bad that you WOULD vote for the lesser of two evils. Say if it was one of todays candidates versus Hitler? Would there be moral value in letting Hitler come to power if you could stop him, or would the clear conscience of not voting for the other candidate be worth it?

I seriously dislike both candidates the same amount this election year. So it is easy for me to choose a third person.

[Haiku]

Will you abstain in protest? 

 

I don't feel that abstaining from voting is a protest. It's more of a capitulation. The fewer regular people who vote, the more we're just handing power to those with wealth and influence.

 

This country's government would look a lot different if more people voted.

[eternalsummer]

Generally if I vote I am voting for the lesser of two evils  - I've never been actually excited about or genuinely supportive of a political candidate, even in the primaries.

 

In this case, I could vote if you held a gun to my head, and it would be entirely against my conscience.  But while one candidate represents many things I believe are fundamentally incorrect or morally wrong (including the candidacy of this type of person in the first place), the other candidate is (imo) very possibly in the pocket of a foreign power.  

 

However,

A.  I don't necessarily believe democracy is the best idea, at least with such a wide franchise.

B.  I don't necessarily believe we really have a democracy as such - voting machines are easier to rig even than paper votes, imo, and we have a comprehensive, large, and dedicated national security/intelligence apparatus that I wholeheartedly believe would not allow a Manchurian candidate to come into actual power.

 

So I am not, on the whole, really afraid of the outcome of the election.

 

If the national security and intelligence agencies are not running the show, or at least influencing it enough to make a national security threat a non-threat, then I'm not sure why I pay a gazillion dollars in taxes.

[Mergath]

The US election has me wishing I could vote, and I'm Canadian.  :lol:  Neither are great options that I could get whole-heartedly behind, but one is in a "I really do not trust this person" kind of way, and the other is in a "It doesn't even matter that I'm not American because this person could literally blow up half the world" kind of way. I'll take misgivings over the apocalypse any day.

 

Yep. I think this year's election is really a choice between lawful evil and chaotic evil. (The argument could be made that it's between lawful neutral and chaotic evil, but I think Clinton has way too much self-interest to be neutral.) I'd vote for a jar of peanut butter if it means keeping the chaotic evil candidate out. ;)

[eternalsummer]

I don't feel that abstaining from voting is a protest. It's more of a capitulation. The fewer regular people who vote, the more we're just handing power to those with wealth and influence.

 

This country's government would look a lot different if more people voted.

 

 

Incorrect  - "regular" people are very easily bought via advertising or selective news promotion (which is basically advertising).  Having regular people vote isn't changing the outcome, it's making it more sure.

 

The opposite - if no one voted - *would* be a game changer :)

[Guest]

It is definitely the first time I have ever been utterly flummoxed over voting. Neither candidate suits me, but one is more personally repugnant to me. Yet the non-repugnant candidate also supports some policies that I am very definitely not in favor of. Also don't "like" that candidate.

 

The only thing I see as a benefit at present is that I am not in a swing state. I am in a very reliably specifically-leaning state. So in my case, I feel as though it makes no difference if I vote a non-primary candidate.

 

I am not entirely certain what I am going to do and I don't even think I will know for certain until I am standing at the booth. I know what I will never vote to support, so there's that.

 

I do look at it like this: I only have my one little measly vote. I cannot put my measly vote behind someone I find repugnant, no matter who/what party is against that candidate. There are certain scenarios I'm imagining and, if they were to happen, I could not say, "...and I voted for that President only because I was trying to vote against the other party, so I held my nose and put that awful person in power." No. I cannot have that on my conscience. My vote cannot go for someone I find repugnant, no matter what party affiliation.

 

I'm mostly just extremely disappointed that my DD's first voting experience is THIS.

[maize]

 

 

And after reading today that Clinton is leading in Georgia, I think the map this year might look quite different than it has in the past. Anything could happen. 

 

I do think anything could happen, I can't believe what has happened already. I will be surprised if the usual red/blue map does not get shaken up by this election.

 

I will vote for the candidate I believe likely to do the least harm.

[Guest]

Sorry dp

Edited August 5, 2016 by Quill

[6packofun]

As a Catholic, I'm blessed to have the words of our former Pope to help me as I hash things out. This quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict, gives me guidance, because I very much feel there are proportionate reasons in this election. 

 

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

 

Now, this is different from voting for someone BECAUSE of their evil stance, which he clarifies here:

 

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

 

This is interesting to me because Catholic charities have been fighting against having to provide contraceptives they find immoral and not in keeping with their faith--and what the pope tells them, I assume--and yet the Democratic nominee specifically wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment to cause taxpayers to pay for abortions.  Is this a correct statement?  The Dem platform states it as a goal.  So, a Catholic knows the Democratic candidate will do everything within her power to force Catholics to fund abortions.  How is this different than those nuns trying to not have to pay for/provide for birth control? 

 

Is the pope really saying that it's OK to vote for someone who you know is going to promote evil and make you pay for evil (if that's how a Catholic views it), just as long as you're not voting for the person TO do those things?  

[purpleowl]

I'm always curious about this. Is this an absolute statement? I mean, would there be some point where one was SO bad that you WOULD vote for the lesser of two evils. Say if it was one of todays candidates versus Hitler? Would there be moral value in letting Hitler come to power if you could stop him, or would the clear conscience of not voting for the other candidate be worth it?

 

I'm not the person you were directing this to (she said she finds the two major candidates equally bad choices), but I think it's going to be something each person must decide for himself/herself. If you think Candidate A and Candidate B are both really, really bad ideas, but under duress you'd say Candidate A was slightly less bad, then you have these possible outcomes:

 

1. You vote for Candidate A; Candidate B wins. You know that you tried to stop Candidate B from winning, but you had to vote for Candidate A to do so, and your vote didn't actually stop Candidate B in the end. 

2. You vote for Candidate A; Candidate A wins. You have to live with the fact that you helped put Candidate A in office.

3. You vote for Candidate X (third-party candidate); Candidate A wins. The lesser of two evils is in office, but you don't have to live with having put that candidate there. This is probably the ideal scenario.

4. You vote for Candidate X; Candidate B wins. You have to live with the fact that you didn't cast a vote for the candidate who had a chance of stopping Candidate B from getting in office.

 

So I think for some people, outcome 2 is easier to live with than outcome 4. For others, outcome 4 is easier to live with than outcome 2 (or the hope of outcome 3 is enough to risk outcome 4).

 

As I mentioned before, I'm trying to decide whether I'm going to vote for Candidate A or Candidate X myself, so I've been mulling this over!

[ktgrok]

This is interesting to me because Catholic charities have been fighting against having to provide contraceptives they find immoral and not in keeping with their faith--and what the pope tells them, I assume--and yet the Democratic nominee specifically wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment to cause taxpayers to pay for abortions.  Is this a correct statement?  The Dem platform states it as a goal.  So, a Catholic knows the Democratic candidate will do everything within her power to force Catholics to fund abortions.  How is this different than those nuns trying to not have to pay for/provide for birth control? 

 

Is the pope really saying that it's OK to vote for someone who you know is going to promote evil and make you pay for evil (if that's how a Catholic views it), just as long as you're not voting for the person TO do those things?  

 

Well, he's not the current Pope, he's a Pope Emeritus :)

 

But yes, the idea is we are not to be single issue voters. We should on the other hand, not reduce all issues to equal importance, but we cannot be single issue voters. So yes, even if we heartily disagree on a specific issue, if there is, as he said, proportionate reason to still vote for them, we can. Now, judging if there is proportionate reason is up to the individual conscience. 

 

Edited to add: I also balance into this that I think one candidates policies, although actually pro-choice, will lead to less abortions than the pro-life's policies. Add on the death penalty, people dying from inadequate healthcare, and the number of people that could be killed in a potential nuclear war, I think an argument that the pro-choice candidate is more "pro-life" in all it's forms than the official pro-life candidate. 

 

Edited again to add: My tax dollars either way go to support evil. The death penalty, for one. Pro-life also means anti-death penalty, remember, at least to Catholics. And I've been paying for that for a long time. And for wars, etc. 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Edited August 5, 2016 by ktgrok

[eternalsummer]

Yep. I think this year's election is really a choice between lawful evil and chaotic evil. (The argument could be made that it's between lawful neutral and chaotic evil, but I think Clinton has way too much self-interest to be neutral.) I'd vote for a jar of peanut butter if it means keeping the chaotic evil candidate out. ;)

 

 

Trump is way too weak to be chaotic evil.  The danger is not Trump per se, it is whose behalf he is acting on.  Hint: it's not his own (though he may think it is).

 

Clinton, imo, is self-interested and without particular moral compunction, but she is at least part of the establishment and can be trusted to more or less maintain the (admittedly terrible) status quo.  She just also happens to represent the culmination of a movement I think is misguided at best and nation-destroying (from the inside) at worst.  

 

 

It's an amazing cycle because I would have voted for almost any conservative you can name against Clinton, but I cannot vote for Trump who is neither conservative nor even part of a reliable American establishment.  There are many Democrats I might have voted for against Trump, but Clinton is just a step too far left in too many ways.

 

Bloomberg decided if Clinton won the nomination there wouldn't be enough room in the middle for a third party run, and I assume he did a lot of internal polling to come to this conclusion, but jeez, I think he might have been wrong.  (although very possibly it would have just meant no majority, House decides, Paul Ryan is the next president).

[Mergath]

Trump is way too weak to be chaotic evil.  The danger is not Trump per se, it is whose behalf he is acting on.  Hint: it's not his own (though he may think it is).

 

Clinton, imo, is self-interested and without particular moral compunction, but she is at least part of the establishment and can be trusted to more or less maintain the (admittedly terrible) status quo.  She just also happens to represent the culmination of a movement I think is misguided at best and nation-destroying (from the inside) at worst.  

 

 

It's an amazing cycle because I would have voted for almost any conservative you can name against Clinton, but I cannot vote for Trump who is neither conservative nor even part of a reliable American establishment.  There are many Democrats I might have voted for against Trump, but Clinton is just a step too far left in too many ways.

 

Bloomberg decided if Clinton won the nomination there wouldn't be enough room in the middle for a third party run, and I assume he did a lot of internal polling to come to this conclusion, but jeez, I think he might have been wrong.  (although very possibly it would have just meant no majority, House decides, Paul Ryan is the next president).

 

If it wouldn't be such a blatant violation of the board rules, it would be fun to have a s/o thread arguing about which alignment the candidates fall under. ;) 

[hornblower]

If people want to discuss actual candidates, there is the wtm politics social group.

 

I think this thread needs to stay general in order to not violate the board rules. 

[Robin M]

My dad said something interesting the other day about how he is making his decision. The only thing he is looking at is how the person elected will affect the supreme court.  The justices are all older now and will be retiring or god forbid, passing away. Which candidate will put forth justices who will support the constitution or want to change it totally.  Something to think about.   

[maize]

Yeah, the Supreme Court is on my mind as well.

[MotherGoose]

I've been contemplating writing in my friends cats name, but as of now, I'm going to write in the name of my senator, whom I love.

[Guest]

I'm voting for Clay Henry, the goat mayor of Lajitas, Texas. At this point, I think he'd do better than either candidate.

[Crimson Wife]

You mean getting people out to vote? The horror. There are actual polls behind the numbers. 

 

No, I mean trying to scare people out of voting for a 3rd party candidate. If someone is in [insert name of non-swing state] and likes [insert name of 3rd party candidate] better than [insert name of major party candidate], that person should not be scaremongered into voting for [major party candidate] just because that's who the media and blogosphere prefers.

 

I'm calling B.S. on the whole "solidly blue/red states are swing states this year so don't you DARE vote 3rd party!!!!!!!" narrative...

 

[blue daisy]

I will absolutely vote. I find one candidate very dangerous and I am very concerned about our country's future with that candidate leading. I don't love the other candidate but I believe that one is qualified to lead and I agree with most of that person's positions. There is another candidate that I loved but that did not get nominated. I may consider third parties but I will most likely not vote for them because I believe that is basically a vote for the candidate I cannot see running our country.

[umsami]

My dad said something interesting the other day about how he is making his decision. The only thing he is looking at is how the person elected will affect the supreme court.  The justices are all older now and will be retiring or god forbid, passing away. Which candidate will put forth justices who will support the constitution or want to change it totally.  Something to think about.   

 

While I think that is one way to allow oneself to "hold their nose' so to speak, it's a totally different game now that the Senate is refusing to consider Obama's nominee for almost a year before he leaves office?  It's quite possible that whomever is elected could face the same stubbornness in the Senate if the Senate's majority is for the opposite party. 

[Anacharsis]

Hopefully we can discuss this without being partisan, because I feel like the issue is pretty much exactly the same on both sides (regardless of which side I feel is right). 

 

If you feel like the nominee from the other party is outrageously unacceptable, but the nominee for your own party is also someone you would really rather not see running the country, what will you do? Will you abstain in protest? Will you vote for your party's nominee, hoping that their tendencies will be mitigated by the checks and balances built into the system and in the expectation that at least the issues you feel are important will be covered? Will you vote for someone else, someone you wholeheartedly believe is the best candidate but who is highly unlikely to garner enough votes to win, and who instead may draw off enough votes from your own party's nominee to allow the other nominee to win? 

 

I'm truly undecided about what to do this year. I really thought that I would vote for a non-nominated former candidate, regardless of the consequences, but as we get closer to the election, I cannot bear the idea of the other party's nominee winning in a Nader/Gore/Bush scenario. 

 

If you care to talk about it, what will you do? What's your thought process like at this point? If this post is deleted, I totally get it, but I'd love to hear how other people are working this out in their heads, because I know that neither of the two nominees is the kind of person that many of us wanted to lead the country for the next 4-8 years. 

 

:bigear:

 

I find a good balance is being willing to vote without self-identifying as a Voter. I find that that makes it easier to avoid the very common Good Cop / Bad Cop arguments that both sides use to say that you should vote for someone whom you don't agree with rather than "throwing your vote away" on a third-party candidate or through not voting for a particular position where nobody represents you, to prevent the other candidate from winning.

 

Using Google News Archives search to read editorials from previous presidential campaigns over the years will make it easier to realize how very common certain types of arguments are, regardless of who is running.

 

If it looks like a bad candidate of one sort or another will be elected to a particular position either way, a better place to focus is on electing someone who represents you for those positions that have veto power over the problem position.

 

A classic comedy, still (depressingly?) relevant today despite being 20 years old, is the Simpson's Treehouse of Horror presidential skit, "Citizen Kang". Worth a re-watch if you are looking for some laughs. :)

[MercyA]

I'm always curious about this. Is this an absolute statement? I mean, would there be some point where one was SO bad that you WOULD vote for the lesser of two evils. Say if it was one of todays candidates versus Hitler? Would there be moral value in letting Hitler come to power if you could stop him, or would the clear conscience of not voting for the other candidate be worth it?

 

For me, I believe it is an absolute. I have to ask myself, "Does God ever desire me to sin?" The answer is no. Then, I must ask, "Is voting for a candidate who openly endorses evil sin?" The answer for me is yes, according to my conscience and according to Scripture which speaks against "strengthen[ing] the hands of evildoers." And, finally, "Is God able to place into or allow into power whomever He wishes, for judgment or for blessing?" Absolutely yes.

 

That being the case, my responsibility is to fear and obey God. The consequences are His.

[happypamama]

I will vote. I don't believe you get to complain if you won't cast your vote.

 

I'm in a swing state. I have not decided what to do yet. I might vote for my party's candidate, the lesser of two evils, believing that God can use unworthy people in ways we can't imagine, and I might vote a write in candidate that I believe represents me better. It might depend on how close the polls are.

 

I felt like in other elections, I might not have been thrilled about my party's candidate, but I didn't dislike it; I just wasn't excited about it. But the choice was still clear. This time, it's more complex. As the meme going around says, "39 million people (or whatever it was), and we chose these two??"

 

It is appalling that you can be president and have the majority of the people actually not vote for you.

[fraidycat]

It's not hard to decide at all. One is a lying politician - so same old, same old. One is an unhinged lunatic who'll start WWIII the first time someone says something "mean and nasty" about them.

[ktgrok]

For me, I believe it is an absolute. I have to ask myself, "Does God ever desire me to sin?" The answer is no. Then, I must ask, "Is voting for a candidate who openly endorses evil sin?" The answer for me is yes, according to my conscience and according to Scripture which speaks against "strengthen[ing] the hands of evildoers." And, finally, "Is God able to place into or allow into power whomever He wishes, for judgment or for blessing?" Absolutely yes.

 

That being the case, my responsibility is to fear and obey God. The consequences are His.

 

I find this interesting. I mean, every candidate is human, and therefore sins, so any vote will be a vote for a sinner. But if the choice is for a candidate that is say pro-choice, or a candidate that is pro-choice and say, in favor of genocide (not saying any candidates now are, just following this out to it's conclusion) and euthanasia and forced sterilization, and wants to bring back death camps, I would feel God would want me to stop the genocide if I could. 

[Janeway]

I really do not want one person, but really do not like the conservative candidate, but will vote for the conservative one because I so do not want the other one. My hope is, 8 years with a liberal candidate, 4 yrs with a conservative-not too much damage can be done, and maybe it will all even out. I do not think Trump is actually conservative.  Maybe I won't vote.

[JustEm]

I will be voting in local elections. I may or may not vote in the presidential election. If I do, it'll be a write in or third party candidate. The 2 major parties will not be getting my vote. I believe both candidates are absolutely despicable and am ashamed that this is what we have pick for ourselves.

[JadeOrchidSong]

This is interesting to me because Catholic charities have been fighting against having to provide contraceptives they find immoral and not in keeping with their faith--and what the pope tells them, I assume--and yet the Democratic nominee specifically wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment to cause taxpayers to pay for abortions. Is this a correct statement? The Dem platform states it as a goal. So, a Catholic knows the Democratic candidate will do everything within her power to force Catholics to fund abortions. How is this different than those nuns trying to not have to pay for/provide for birth control?

 

Is the pope really saying that it's OK to vote for someone who you know is going to promote evil and make you pay for evil (if that's how a Catholic views it), just as long as you're not voting for the person TO do those things?

I agree with you.

No matter what reason you vote for the person, the result is the same if that person will put policies in place to make everyone pay for the things you are morally against. I do not understand the pope's logic either.