"Lesser of Two Evils" Fallacy

Never had the pleasure of voting for a perfect candidate.

I just noticed Alan Keyes was in the most recent GOP debate (at least it looked like him from the quick flashes I saw). He's gotten so little time in the news I didn't even know he was running. Not that I feel he is a perfect candidate, but the media controls what we see and know about this election to the point that most of us don't even really know what our options are.

But our willingness to vote for imperfect candidates can cause us to not vote for someone better whom we feel has no chance to win. I wish so many Christians (and I've done this, too) would not skip over candidates that are really our first choice in order to vote for an even less perfect candidate simply because the media tells us he "has a chance to win." This practice continues the cycle of mediocrity (and worse) and guarantees that, as long as Christianity is not mainstream, no really strong Christian leaders will be elected. Just imho.

 

Why can' t it be the least of X evils, if one holds to truth and right? Why only two?

 

If understand what you are saying, I agree that no candidate is perfect and we cannot always anticipate what a candidate will do once elected, just as candidates cannot anticipate the events they will face once elected and what decisions they will have to make. This is why the candidates character and personal principles are so important. Character and principles in a politician???.... What a conundrum!

 

I definately believe you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Failure to vote for either does NOT allow you to wipe your hands clean of the matter!

Example: if there are only 2 to choose from where one is in favor of abortion, but against homosexuality...and the other is pro life and is also pro homosexuality, I'm voting on the side of life EVERY time, so I will vote for the pro life candidate regardless of his view on homosexuality.

 

It's one thing (IMO) to not vote for someone and thereby allow them to win (or lose) than to vote for them! How can a Christian vote for someone who despises Christian values?

 

By not voting for anyone, you have given your permission to the world to decide for you. You ARE making a decision even in silence!

Sometimes not saying anything is saying something the loudest.

 

I agree.

I am very disappointed in some of the things President Bush has done and not done in his 8 years in office. However, I would vote for him again in a heartbeat against Gore or Kerry.

 

As would I....

 

Sometimes. Like I said in my first post, this is not the election for it, probably.

But if Kerry had eked out Bush because Christians voted the way they actually believe, then as the US gets sick of the liberal democrat administration (as we do of every administration), Hillary would have no chance, the Christian Conservative voice would carry weight, and there would be contrast, at least (today there is virtually no difference between the R agenda and the D). I believe that the worst situation under Kerry would not be nearly as bad as what we're gonna get now that Christians are laying down and accepting agendas more liberal than our grandparents would have believed.

Why can't we stand up for what we believe, and let the chips fall where they may? Will we tun America back into a God-loving, free-enterprise protecting, and otherwise free country? No. Not if we don't vote for those values in the face of seeming defeat.

WWSAD? What would Sam Adams Do? (not the whiskey, you carnal sinner, you.:thumbs:

 

Sam Adams the brewing company has gotten into the distilling business now? :thumbs:

 

They're still in it, corndog! I don't know, it might be beer only.

There are plenty of people here who know, though. Maybe a new thread?

 

Ah...my favorite...Cherry Wheat

 

Doesn't the term "Lesser of two evils" refer to having only two candidates available that you wish you didnt have to vote for either one rather than refering just to an imperfect candidate?

example:

If Guilliani and Clinton were the two candidates then voting for guilliani would be the lesser of two evils for me.

If Hunter and Clinton were the two candidates I could comfortably support Hunter although he is not a perfect candidate.

I do not think it is always true that we must choose between the lesser of two evils.

 

Why make a new one when I can derail this one just fine? :laugh: I just thought that comment about Sam Adams making whiskey was funny. Yes, they're beer-only, unless you count the beer that's aged in used whiskey barrels, but they're still not making it. Anyway, carry on.

 

We vote for the candidate that best represents our views. You can label that anyway you like, and the few above seem applicable. None will be the perfect candidate for anyone. I pretty much agree with Timothy on this thread.

 

Yep. Is it the lesser of two evils, or the best of the imperfect? Kinda depressing to believe that you're actually voting for evil.

The day that you find the perfect politician is the day that you'll see the antichrist. :thumbs:

 

I don't know, corndog, but we may have seen the antichrist in this forum already...

All I know is that I'm gonna write you in if I'm not happy with the others.