Hey, Big Spender!

This is an unrealistic scenario - I think I would pay the fine for not voting before voting for evil, greater or lesser.

The nive thing about America is that I am not forced to make that kind of choice.

 

This is an unrealistic scenario - I think I would pay the fine for not voting before voting for evil, greater or lesser.

The nive thing about America is that I am not forced to make that kind of choice. </font>[/QUOTE]You are making that decision after a fashion, even by not voting. Unless and until we force a change requiring a majority to win any election, even abstaining from voting is making that choice.

The nice thing about the US is that you have that right.

 

I would rather exercise even that choice before voting for evil - be it greater or lesser.

 

Then one cannot vote. No one is without sin.

 

Let me ask you a question: If your options are to either vote for the lesser of two evils or the greater of two evils, which do you choose? </font>[/QUOTE]Neither - I vote for a candidate whom I can support. </font>[/QUOTE]If the circumstances permitted it I would love that option. I oftenoccurs in local politics. But if my vote for an unwinable candidate, enables victory by the greater of two evils, I must account for that at the Bema seat.

 

And if I vote for someone who supports the murder of even one innocent child I too must account for that at the Bema seat.

If we are going to use this kind of logic, we must apply it both ways.

Ken has it right. My problem here is the judegement passed by those who think that to do other than vote for the lesser of two evils is somehow sinful.

Do you folks really think it is sin to vote for a third party candidate?

 

I think only one person here (it may have even been in another thread) has passed judgment on your actions. I think that we should pray before we vote, and in the past, I know I would have been sinning if I had voted for a third party candidate. Perhaps the Lord led you in a different direction.

I do know that a vote for a third party candidate is wasted (statistically) unless we change the process to require a majority. In fact, it can end up being a vote for the greater of two evils.

I personally feel that it is better to vote to save one child's life than to vote against that one child's life being saved.

I also know that the pro-abortionists did not get to where they are today all in one fell swoop, and neither are we going to get things back to where they should be in one fell swoop.

What does Bush believe? I don't know. I can only tell you what he says. But, he is in a position in which even if he truly believes what he says, he cannot act upon it all at once. If he wanted to ban all abortions tomorrow, it would never happen. However, he can get the partial birth abortion banned, then make it more difficult for minors to get an abortion without a parent's notification, etc. Saying that he supports legal abortion in the case of rape or incest is one way to get legislation passed. So, do you want some abortions banned, or do you want them all to be legal?

Get a few stopped, and work at the grass roots level getting legislation passed that requires a majority vote at the local level; then the state level; eventually, for the electoral vote.

It won't all happen at once, but when one of two candidates is going to win and one favors all abortions to be available to all women at all times and the other one only supports banning the partial birth abortion, which one is better? (Even if it's only a temporary solution.)

That being said, if Hillary runs against McCain, I'm not sure what I would vote at this point. Based on Hillary's words, she's much less dangerous than McCain, but I don't believe a word she says.

The Lord may lead me to abstain.

For what it's worth, I think the election before last in which Clinton won with 43% of the vote has kept many people from voting for third party candidates, for this very reason. On both sides.

One solution would be to use Australian rules balloting, which I don't even know if they use it in Australia.

 

Sorry Hope,

I just can't in good conscience vote for a candidate who will support the murder of even one child. I will vote for a candidate who opposes the murder of all children, then leave the results up to God.

I admit that abortion is the key factor in my voting decision. God will sort out all of the politics.

 

OK, how about this:

You have a choice of whether an innocent man will be executed, or whether an innocent family of 8 will be excecuted. Which one do you choose? (Not choosing will result in all 9 being executed.)

This is the kind of choice that you are making. By choosing for the 1 to be executed, you are saving the other 8. By not choosing an available option, you are choosing for all 9 to be executed.

 

No, that is not the scenario here by any means. I am not faced with an immediate decision as to how to act.

I am voting on policy. If we elect a person who opposes all abortions he is FAR more likely to save a few lives than one who admits that he supports the killing of babies in some cases. The latter already admits that it doesn't matter if a few die. If the life of every child is not protected, than the life of no child is protected.

 

But, the way our system is set up, the person who opposes all abortions will not be elected; so he is not a viable option in the scenario of actually saving lives. In fact, a vote for him will put someone in power who is in favor of all abortions all the time.

Whereas, the one will accept them in some instances (although he has expressed opposition to them) in order to save the others is a viable option for saving some lives.

A vote for the latter is not a vote for some abortions, but is a vote to save as many as possible. It's going to be one of those two options who win: Either the one who will accept a few, or the one who encourages many.

If you can stop a few now, you can work on stopping a few more later, then a few more, then a few more.

We didn't get to the position of wholesale abortions overnight, and we will not return overnight, either. It's just like any war; you fight one battle at a time.

(For what it's worth, if the power is returned to the individual states, where it belongs, then you will have more power to vote in such a way to stop them; it would be easier to change state laws to require a majority to win than Fed laws.)

 

I agree with your last statement 100%.

I guess my whole problem with this is pragmatism vs principle. I would rather vote for a person who believes in the total sanctity of life and leave the results in God's hands than to vote for a person who does not believe that the life of every single child is precious.

 

And if I vote for someone who supports the murder of even one innocent child I too must account for that at the Bema seat.

If we are going to use this kind of logic, we must apply it both ways.

Ken has it right. My problem here is the judegement passed by those who think that to do other than vote for the lesser of two evils is somehow sinful.

Do you folks really think it is sin to vote for a third party candidate? </font>[/QUOTE]Very good points, and it is this compromising of Christians ideals (that which I seem to be doing) that have gotten us so far afield. It's almost a catch-22 thing.

But to vote for George Allen,(hypothetically running as a 3rd party, and prefered candidate) when J. McCain is the Rep. nominee against Hillary, is to cast a vote for hillary. Or another way to look at it is not having cast a vote against Hillary.

The Supremes are now, it seems, in a position to nullify abortion nationally and can justify that position constitutionally, with protections for the unborn, regardless of future Congressional leanings.

 

What if your/our right to life candidate, the only such person on the ballot also holds to banning the death penalty, and believes in disarming the military, and stop the sensless pumping of oils from American soils, etc....

What if our candidate is only pro-life for our vote. Hillary has stated similar leanings. That will fool many believers.

 

I wish I knew - I just know that I can't vote for a candidate who thinks that it is permissable to kill babies under the right circumstances.

 

I guess that is right. I am not easily swayed, but I can not support that either. Thanks Roger.

 

Thanks for this discussion folks. I appreciated the demeanour with which it was carried out.

[ March 26, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I thought I was done here but, with this practice in force elections will be decided by secular humanists only and the conservative right wing Christians will have given up on the election process, because we are not nearly big enough to carry a candidate or an issue, but our strength lies in swaying the results of the top two candidates/issues....nationally speaking....
Taking pleasure in unrighteousness isn't an issue here, SF.

It is this process of voting for the lessor of two evils that has slowed the descent of the morals of this nation. Yes her morals are continuing to slide, but at a slower pace because of the restraint we apply at the poles. We must continue to apply as much influence on the election of our representtives as possible. If we turn all our votes over to say Mr. Magic Christian, over say Mr. Sec Human, it may result in the election of Mr. A. C who is evil through and through.
We support Mr. M Christian with 20%
Mr. Sec Human gets 35%
Mr. A. C. gets 40% and wins. But we've stood for our principals and voted America down the tubes. I do not believe that is the Lords leading. It is the failure of the Body of Christ to bring enough converts to the voting booth that is the problem with being able to vote for the best candidate.