If not voting for the two main candidates

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Rachel, Oct 25, 2004.

  1. Rachel

    Rachel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,939
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have some question's for people not voting for either of the two main candidates. I'm curious about why. I am not trying to start something, I just want to know.

    If you don't agree with either of the two main candidates, the only two this time that has a chance of being elected President , and vote for someone else, then what good is voting? What about strategic voting? Advancing the public good?
    Say you don't agree with some of candidate A, you disagree with most of candidate B (you think he is even harmful for our country, doesn't agree with what the bible teaches), so you are voting for candidate C (let's call him Mr. Smith).
    You really like Mr. Smith alot and agree with most of what he says, but there is no chance of him being elected. By you voting for him with say a few thousand others, candidate B gets elected which is the worst possible outcome for the country. The votes for Mr. Smith could have gone to candidate A and been much more helpful to the country and Christian issues.

    Wouldn't strategic voting make more sense? Wouldn't that make us wise stewards of our vote, and for our obligation to the whole community?I'm very interested in your thoughts.

    I hope I didn't confuse everyone with what I was trying to say, I'm sorry if I did.

    Rachel
     
  2. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    What if both candidate A and B are harmful for our country and don't agree with what the Bible teaches?
     
  3. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    What if one of them isn't and does agree with the bible. Vote Bush.
     
  4. Pete

    Pete
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rachel, send Mr Smith to Washington...Worked great in the movie ;)

    OK, seriously...I can't vote Down Under, our system is corrupt. I see our "majors" just as evil as each other in slightly different ways, and most of the minors are even worse...That said, if I could vote it would be for who is right, not for who is left. If we had a system worth voting in down here I would encourage everyone I know to do the same thing.

    My dream for Oz is that we dump our current system and the ratbags in it all at once [​IMG]
     
  5. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well, my wife and I certainly don't like Kerry/Edwards, and we don't agree with some of what Bush/Cheney are doing either, but we got our voting out of the way this past weekend. Thank God for early voting in TN! Hope GW gets a second term. I didn't vote for one democrat this time, which is unusual in and of itself. There were no 3rd party candidates for any of the local or state offices....Hmmmm...I wonder why??? ;)
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rachel,

    Arkansas is a safe State for President Bush. There is no doubt he will win Arkansas' six electoral votes. Therefore, my voting for Michael Peroutka will not affect President Bush winning or Senator Kerry losing.
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    By voting for a "third" party I am letting the "major" parties know that they MUST consider my conservative values. Yes, even if it means the "OK" candidate loosing the election. This is why I like the "cross-endorsement" system in NY. When a person is on the Republician, Conservative, Right-To-Life, and other lines, they know exactaly where the voters stand on the issues. As I have stated before, very raely does a Republician win statewide election without the Conservative line endorsement.
     
  8. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    The biblical description of a good leader is one who will rule in the fear of God.
    Following this principle is more important imo than advancing the public good. Our obligation to the community has to be spiritual first, and physical/political after.
    In other words, I couldn't in good conscience vote for anyone simply because they're not as bad as the other.
    That being said, I may not vote for any of them anyhow. I'm starting to feel as if those who say Christians shouldn't be involved so much in politics may be right. There is so much corruption that it makes discernment in that area extremely tough. I've seen so much corruption in the government these past two years that it's thrown me for quite a loop. Elected people in good standing who go to church and claim Christ openly yet sin almost daily in their duties of office, bowing to the whims of higher ups who are not interested in truth or morality. Their decisions affect the whole community and they still get patted on the back by other Christians and get endorsed in churches.
    And sadly, if they did take a true stand they probably wouldn't have a chance at reelection, and would probably themselves fall prey to the corrupted who would do everything in their power to make them miserable.
    I don't believe America is a Christian nation anymore. This grieves me. We have a President that may be great at his office, but who openly stated that his religion doesn't affect his political decisions, yet so many Christians still seem persuaded that he really is a great Christian leader. Kerry said the same thing. He used different wording, but both of their statements boiled down to the same meaning.
    How can one not feel grief over the mass Christian endorsement of these candidates, while one who states the opposite is ignored?
    How can one truly choose a candidate and be at peace with having done the right thing for both the nation and in their own spiritual life?
    I don't know. I can't. But when push comes to shove all I can say is that I'll do my best to do the right thing concerning my faith before all else.
    At this point in time I think that means staying away from this election. A few months ago I thought it meant voting for Peroutka. (and voting against a few selects in other instances)
    So maybe it'll change before the next couple days are over, and maybe not. I don't think it will though, this decision kinda has a ring of finality to it, unlike my previous one.
    Gina
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Better for a third party candidate does "good" because it allows me to vote according to my convictions. I could not in good conscience vote for either of the "Big Two." Even if Alabama were not a "safe state" I truly beleive now that I would not have voted for Bush.

    I prefer the phrase "pragmatic voting" over "stategic voting."
     
  10. Stratiotes

    Stratiotes
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like C4K's phrase. My view is that American Christians are too much influenced by that very American philosophy of pragmatism which says to go with what is most likely to give you good results. In other words, the test of a right or wrong choice is the results of that choice. That is the philosophy behind the lesser-of-two-evils talk. But pragmatism is not a very biblical philosophy because, if we say that good choices are the ones that give good results then it begs the question, how do we know the results are good? Pragmatism is nothing more than circular reasoning and not a solid foundation for making sound and moral judgements.

    Gina, I can certainly understand what you're saying. The same thoughts had occurred to me at one time or other. Some would say that it is wrong to support the common belief that we actually have a choice anyhow. We all know there is no choice - our only choice is between two peas of the same pod so we should not play along with "the machine" giving it any credebility. But I just rebelious enough to want to at least lodge a protest with a third party vote if nothing else.
     
  11. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0


    Rachel, I think your question is one that many have right now.



    I would have to ask the converse...if you feel that you are forced to vote for someone with whom you don't agree, what good is voting? The "big boys" in the major parties are running the game to their personal benefit, and expect us to continue to follow their line that we "have nowhere else to go". I will no longer play their game; it's ruining our country.



    It turns out, IMO, that the best strategic choice is also the RIGHT choice. Reason: a vote for the "lesser evil", in the long run, simply cements the evil influence and rewards the parties for giving us evil candidates. The GOP cannot win elections without the conservative Christian vote...BUT...unless we are willing to WITHDRAW our vote, it is powerless, nothing more than a rubber stamp for the bad policies of the GOP.

    So, strategically, we must excersize our power by voting for what we believe in.


    I am not advocating a third party vote aganist someone with whom I only disagree a little bit. I vote for candidates like that frequently. In fact, I don't agree totally with any candidate, major or minor.




    But, what if Mr. Smith is a two-faced hypocrite who cynically uses the loyalty of Christians to his party, along with a few key phrases, to stay in office and implement the exact opposite agenda from what they wish? Suppose Mr. Smith had already had four years, and used that time to federalize education, make huge increases in funding for Planned Parenthood, made numerous appointments of homosexual activists to key positions, stacked his administration with pro-aborts (advancing their positions of power), and spent our nation into oblivion with huge increases in social spending?



    Voting for candidates who take our nation in the wrong direction is not strategically smart, IMO. As a matter of stewardship, I cannot give my one precious vote to someone who does not reflect biblican values.

    [/qb]

    Not at all. I hope my response was as clear.
     
  12. Rachel

    Rachel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,939
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmmmm...interesting responses. I was really curious of why, now I understand. Thanks everyone.
    Rachel
     
  13. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams
     
  14. Elnora

    Elnora
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Such good responses! Thank you all.
     
  15. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    A correction to my post above: Where I said "But, what if Mr. Smith...", I should have said "But, what if candidate A..."
     
  16. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    You can't. You can only vote for one of them, at the most.
     

Share This Page

Loading...